Nasal insufflation treatment adherence in obstructive sleep apnea

Background Nasal insufflation (NI) is a novel treatment method that has been introduced for improving respiration during sleep. NI’s warmed and humidified nasal airflow provides ventilatory assistance delivered as a rapidly dispersed pressure head, with minimal side wall pressures, that may affect t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Sleep & breathing 2015-03, Vol.19 (1), p.351-357
Hauptverfasser: Sowho, Mudiaga O., Woods, Michael J., Biselli, Paolo, McGinley, Brian M., Buenaver, Luis F., Kirkness, Jason P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Nasal insufflation (NI) is a novel treatment method that has been introduced for improving respiration during sleep. NI’s warmed and humidified nasal airflow provides ventilatory assistance delivered as a rapidly dispersed pressure head, with minimal side wall pressures, that may affect treatment tolerability. The aim of the current study was to investigate objective and subjective adherence rates for NI therapy in mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Methods Ten patients (three men and seven women; age, 51.3 ± 9.6 years; BMI, 32.2 ± 7.7 kg/m 2 [mean ± sd]) with recently diagnosed mild to moderate OSA (10.9 ± 5.8 events/h) were investigated. A crossover design was used to compare adherence to NI and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy using a range of objective and subjective measurements. Objective (sleep efficiency (%) and arousal indices (arousal/h)) and subjective evaluations of sleep quality were carried out each night in the laboratory. During in-home treatment, adherence for both therapies was assessed objectively (time on therapy) and subjectively (self-reported sleep diary). Results Objectively derived adherence values were comparable for CPAP and NI, with both treatment devices sharing similar usage per night (3.5 ± 2.5 vs. 3.6 ± 1.6 h/night; respectively) and the number of nights with at least 4 h of treatment (5.5 ± 4.3 vs. 6.8 ± 3.3 nights/trial, respectively). Self-reported adherence was significantly higher than objectively assessed adherence ( p  
ISSN:1520-9512
1522-1709
DOI:10.1007/s11325-014-1027-4