首页> 外文期刊>Sleep >The complex sleep apnea resolution study: A prospective randomized controlled trial of continuous positive airway pressure versus adaptive servoventilation therapy
【24h】

The complex sleep apnea resolution study: A prospective randomized controlled trial of continuous positive airway pressure versus adaptive servoventilation therapy

机译:复杂的睡眠呼吸暂停消退研究:连续气道正压与适应性伺服通气治疗的前瞻性随机对照试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Introduction: Prior studies show that adaptive servoventilation (ASV) is initially more effective than continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for patients with complex sleep apnea syndrome (CompSAS), but choosing therapies has been controversial because residual central breathing events may resolve over time in many patients receiving chronic CPAP therapy. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, prospective trial comparing clinical and polysomnographic outcomes over prolonged treatment of patients with CompSAS, with CPAP versus ASV. Methods: Qualifying participants meeting criteria for CompSAS were randomized to optimized CPAP or ASV treatment. Clinical and polysomnographic data were obtained at baseline and after 90 days of therapy. Results: We randomized 66 participants (33 to each treatment). At baseline, the diagnostic apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) was 37.7 ± 27.8 (central apnea index [CAI] = 3.2 ± 5.8) and best CPAP AHI was 37.0 ± 24.9 (CAI 29.7 ± 25.0). After second-night treatment titration, the AHI was 4.7 ± 8.1 (CAI = 1.1 ± 3.7) on ASV and 14.1 ± 20.7 (CAI = 8.8 ± 16.3) on CPAP (P ≤ 0.0003). At 90 days, the ASV versus CPAP AHI was 4.4 ± 9.6 versus 9.9 ± 11.1 (P = 0.0024) and CAI was 0.7 ± 3.4 versus 4.8 ± 6.4 (P < 0.0001), respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, success (AHI < 10) at 90 days of therapy was achieved in 89.7% versus 64.5% of participants treated with ASV and CPAP, respectively (P = 0.0214). Compliance and changes in Epworth Sleepiness Scale and Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index were not significantly different between treatment groups. Conclusion: Adaptive servoventilation (ASV) was more reliably effective than CPAP in relieving complex sleep apnea syndrome. While two thirds of participants experienced success with CPAP, approximately 90% experienced success with ASV. Because both methods produced similar symptomatic changes, it is unclear if this polysomnographic effectiveness may translate into other desired outcomes. Clinical Trials: Clinicaltrials.Gov NCT00915499.
机译:简介:先前的研究表明,对于复杂的睡眠呼吸暂停综合症(CompSAS)患者,自适应伺服通气(ASV)最初比持续气道正压通气(CPAP)更有效,但是选择疗法一直存在争议,因为残余的中央呼吸事件可能会随着时间的流逝而消失。许多接受慢性CPAP治疗的患者。我们进行了一项多中心,随机,前瞻性试验,比较了CPSAS和ASV对CompSAS患者进行长期治疗后的临床和多导睡眠监测结果。方法:将符合CompSAS标准的合格参与者随机分配到优化的CPAP或ASV治疗。在基线和治疗90天后获得临床和多导睡眠图数据。结果:我们随机分配了66名参与者(每种治疗33名)。在基线时,诊断性呼吸暂停低通气指数(AHI)为37.7±27.8(中央呼吸暂停指数[CAI] = 3.2±5.8),最佳CPAP AHI为37.0±24.9(CAI 29.7±25.0)。在第二夜治疗滴定后,ASV的AHI为4.7±8.1(CAI = 1.1±3.7),CPAP的AHI为14.1±20.7(CAI = 8.8±16.3)(P≤0.0003)。在90天时,ASV与CPAP的AHI分别为4.4±9.6与9.9±11.1(P = 0.0024),而CAI分别为0.7±3.4与4.8±6.4(P <0.0001)。在意向治疗分析中,90天的治疗成功率为89.7%(AHI <10),而接受ASV和CPAP治疗的参与者分别为64.5%(P = 0.0214)。治疗组之间的依从性和爱华氏嗜睡量表和睡眠呼吸暂停生活质量指数的变化无显着差异。结论:自适应伺服通气(ASV)在缓解复杂睡眠呼吸暂停综合症方面比CPAP更可靠。三分之二的参与者通过CPAP获得成功,而大约90%的参与者通过ASV获得成功。由于两种方法均产生相似的症状变化,因此尚不清楚这种多导睡眠监测仪的有效性是否可以转化为其他所需的结果。临床试验:Clinicaltrials.Gov NCT00915499。

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