首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Sleep Disorders >Nasal Expiratory Positive Airway Pressure Devices (Provent) for OSA: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
【2h】

Nasal Expiratory Positive Airway Pressure Devices (Provent) for OSA: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

机译:用于OSA的鼻呼气气道正压装置(Provent):系统评价和荟萃分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Objective. To quantify the effectiveness of nasal expiratory positive airway pressure (nasal EPAP) devices or Provent as treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Methods. PubMed and six other databases were searched through November 15, 2015, without language limitations. Results. Eighteen studies (920 patients) were included. Pre- and post-nasal EPAP means ± standard deviations (M ± SD) for apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) in 345 patients decreased from 27.32 ± 22.24 to 12.78 ± 16.89 events/hr (relative reduction = 53.2%). Random effects modeling mean difference (MD) was −14.78 events/hr [95% CI −19.12, −10.45], p value < 0.00001. Oxygen desaturation index (ODI) in 247 patients decreased from 21.2 ± 19.3 to 12.4 ± 14.1 events/hr (relative reduction = 41.5%, p value < 0.00001). Lowest oxygen saturation (LSAT) M ± SD improved in 146 patients from 83.2 ± 6.8% to 86.2 ± 11.1%, MD 3 oxygen saturation points [95% CI 0.57, 5.63]. Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) M ± SD improved (359 patients) from 9.9 ± 5.3 to 7.4 ± 5.0, MD −2.5 [95% CI −3.2, −1.8], p value < 0.0001. Conclusion. Nasal EPAP (Provent) reduced AHI by 53.2%, ODI by 41.5% and improved LSAT by 3 oxygen saturation points. Generally, there were no clear characteristics (demographic factors, medical history, and/or physical exam finding) that predicted favorable response to these devices. However, limited evidence suggests that high nasal resistance could be associated with treatment failure. Additional studies are needed to identify demographic and polysomnographic characteristics that would predict therapeutic success with nasal EPAP (Provent).
机译:目的。为了量化鼻呼气正压通气(鼻EPAP)设备或Provent作为阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)治疗的有效性。方法。截至2015年11月15日,没有语言限制地搜索了PubMed和其他六个数据库。结果。纳入18项研究(920例患者)。 345例患者的鼻前EPAP平均值和呼吸暂停低通气指数(AHI)的±标准差(M±SD)从27.32±22.24降至12.78±16.89事件/小时(相对减少= 53.2%)。随机效应模型的平均差异(MD)为-14.78个事件/小时[95%CI -19.12,-10.45],p值<0.00001。 247位患者的氧饱和度降低指数(ODI)从21.2±19.3事件/小时降低至12.4±14.1事件/小时(相对降低= 41.5%,p值<0.00001)。 146名患者的最低氧饱和度(LSAT)M±SD从83.2±6.8%改善至86.2±11.1%,MD 3氧饱和度点[95%CI 0.57,5.63]。 Epworth嗜睡量表(ESS)M±SD(359例)从9.9±5.3改善至7.4±5.0,MD -2.5 [95%CI -3.2,-1.8],p值<0.0001。结论。鼻EPAP(Provent)将AHI降低了53.2%,ODI降低了41.5%,LSAT降低了3个氧饱和度点。通常,没有明确的特征(人口统计学因素,病史和/或体格检查发现)可以预测对这些设备的良好反应。但是,有限的证据表明,高的鼻阻力可能与治疗失败有关。还需要进行其他研究来确定人口统计学和多导睡眠图特征,这些特征可以预测鼻腔EPAP(Provent)的治疗成功。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号