首页> 外文期刊>Sleep >A multisite randomized trial of portable sleep studies and positive airway pressure autotitration versus laboratory-based polysomnography for the diagnosis and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: The HomePAP study
【24h】

A multisite randomized trial of portable sleep studies and positive airway pressure autotitration versus laboratory-based polysomnography for the diagnosis and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: The HomePAP study

机译:一项便携式睡眠研究和气道正压自动滴定对比实验室多导睡眠图对阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停的诊断和治疗的多站点随机试验:HomePAP研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Study Objectives: To test the utility of an integrated clinical pathway for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnosis and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment using portable monitoring devices. Design: Randomized, open-label, parallel group, unblinded, multicenter clinical trial comparing home-based, unattended portable monitoring for diagnosis and autotitrating CPAP (autoPAP) compared with in-laboratory polysomnography (PSG) and CPAP titration. Setting: Seven American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) accredited sleep centers. Participants: Consecutive new referrals, age 18 yr or older with high probability of moderate to severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] ≥ 15) identified by clinical algorithm and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score ≥ 12. Interventions: Home-based level 3 testing followed by 1 wk of autoPAP with a fixed pressure CPAP prescription based on the 90% pressure from autotitration of PAP therapy (autoPAP) device (HOME) compared with attended, in-laboratory studies (LAB). Measurements: CPAP acceptance, time to treatment, adherence at 1 and 3 mo; changes in ESS, and functional outcomes. Results: Of 373 participants, approximately one-half in each study arm remained eligible (AHI ≥ 15) to continue in the study. At 3 mo, PAP usage (nightly time at pressure) was 1 hr greater: 4.7 ± 2.1 hr (HOME) compared with 3.7 ± 2.4 hr (LAB). Adherence (percentage of night used ≥ 4 hr) was 12.6% higher: 62.8 ± 29.2% compared with 49.4 ± 36.1% in the HOME versus LAB. Acceptance of PAP therapy, titration pressures, effective titrations, time to treatment, and ESS score change did not differ between arms. Conclusions: A home-based strategy for diagnosis and treatment compared with in-laboratory PSG was not inferior in terms of acceptance, adherence, time to treatment, and functional improvements. Trial Registration: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT: 00642486.
机译:研究目标:使用便携式监测设备测试综合临床途径对阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)诊断和持续气道正压通气(CPAP)治疗的实用性。设计:随机,开放标签,平行分组,无盲,多中心临床试验,比较了基于家庭,无人值守的便携式监测仪对诊断和自动滴定CPAP(autoPAP)与实验室多导睡眠图(PSG)和CPAP滴定的比较。地点:美国睡眠医学学会(AASM)认可的七个睡眠中心。参与者:通过临床算法和Epworth Sleepiness Scale(ESS)评分≥12确定的18岁或18岁以上连续转诊,且具有高中到重度OSA(呼吸暂停-呼吸不足指数[AHI]≥15)的可能性。第3级测试,然后以固定压力CPAP处方进行1 wk autoPAP处方,该处方基于PAP疗法(autoPAP)装置(HOME)的自动滴定相对于参加的实验室研究(LAB)的90%压力。测量:CPAP验收,治疗时间,在1和3 mo时的依从性; ESS的变化和功能结果。结果:在373名参与者中,每个研究组中大约有一半仍符合继续研究的条件(AHI≥15)。在3个月时,PAP的使用时间(每天晚上在压力下)比3.7±2.4小时(LAB)大1小时:4.7±2.1小时(HOME)。依从性(使用4小时以上的夜间百分比)提高了12.6%:62.8±29.2%,而与LAB相比,在家中为49.4±36.1%。两组之间接受PAP治疗,滴定压力,有效滴定,治疗时间和ESS评分变化无差异。结论:与实验室内PSG相比,基于家庭的诊断和治疗策略在接受度,依从性,治疗时间和功能改善方面均不逊色。试用注册:http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov;标识符:NCT:00642486。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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