首页> 外文期刊>Sleep >A randomized crossover efficacy trial of oral CPAP (Oracle) compared with nasal CPAP in the management of obstructive sleep apnea.
【24h】

A randomized crossover efficacy trial of oral CPAP (Oracle) compared with nasal CPAP in the management of obstructive sleep apnea.

机译:口服CPAP(Oracle)与鼻CPAP在阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停治疗中的随机交叉疗效试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine the therapeutic efficacy and viability of a novel oral interface for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with conventional nasal interfaces. DESIGN: A randomized single-blind crossover study. SETTING: Hospital-based sleep laboratory. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: 21 CPAP-naive patients with obstructive sleep apnea (baseline apnea-hypopnea index, 85 +/- 36) Interventions: Nasal CPAP and oral CPAP MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Patients were each treated for two 4-week periods using nasal CPAP and oral CPAP. The CPAP titrations were undertaken at the start of each treatment arm. Outcome measures were recorded at baseline and at the end of each treatment arm. These included polysomnography variables, CPAP compliance, subjective sleepiness, obstructive sleep apnea symptom ratings, and adverse effects. There were no significant differences between oral and nasal interfaces for the on-CPAP frequency of apneas and hypopneas (mean difference, nasal-oral [95%CI] = -4.6[-10.1-1.0]/h; P = 0.06) or arousals (-3.0 [-7.8-1.8]/h; P = 0.23). There were also no statistically significant differences between interfaces for scores on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (-0.7 [-3.1-1.7]; P = 0.20), obstructive sleep apnea symptoms (-7.7 [-17.7-2.4]; P = 0.052), CPAP compliance (0.3 [-0.5-1.1] hight; P = 0.50), CPAP pressure (0.05 [-0.66-0.76] cmH20; P = 0.73), CPAP side effects scores (-2.0 [-5.3-1.4]; P = 0.23), or mask preference (P = 0.407). In addition, both nasal and oral interfaces significantly improved polysomnographic variables, Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores, obstructive sleep apnea symptoms, and CPAP compliance from baseline (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study indicates that oral CPAP has similar efficacy to traditionally applied nasal CPAP in treating obstructive sleep apnea. Additional large studies are required to determine the range of clinical situations where oral CPAP is indicated.
机译:研究目的:确定与常规鼻界面相比,新型口腔界面对持续气道正压通气(CPAP)的治疗效果和生存能力。设计:一项随机单盲交叉研究。地点:基于医院的睡眠实验室。患者或参与者:21例初次接受CPAP的阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停患者(基线呼吸暂停低通气指数,85 +/- 36)干预措施:鼻腔CPAP和口服CPAP测量和结果:患者均使用鼻腔CPAP进行了两个为期4周的治疗和口服CPAP。在每个治疗组开始时进行CPAP滴定。在基线和每个治疗组结束时记录结果指标。这些包括多导睡眠监测仪变量,CPAP依从性,主观嗜睡,阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停症状分级以及不良反应。 CPAP上呼吸暂停和呼吸不足的频率在口腔和鼻腔界面之间无显着差异(平均差异,鼻-口[95%CI] = -4.6 [-10.1-1.0] / h; P = 0.06) (-3.0 [-7.8-1.8] /h;P=0.23)。 Epworth嗜睡量表的评分(-0.7 [-3.1-1.7]; P = 0.20),阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停症状(-7.7 [-17.7-2.4]; P = 0.052)之间的界面之间也没有统计学上的显着差异。 CPAP依从性(0.3 [-0.5-1.1] h / night; P = 0.50),CPAP压力(0.05 [-0.66-0.76] cmH2O; P = 0.73),CPAP副作用评分(-2.0 [-5.3-1.4]; P = 0.23)或蒙版首选项(P = 0.407)。此外,鼻腔和口腔界面均显着改善了多导睡眠图变量,Epworth困倦量表评分,阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停症状和从基线开始的CPAP依从性(所有P <0.05)。结论:这项初步研究表明,口服CPAP在治疗阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停方面与传统应用的鼻CPAP具有相似的疗效。需要进行其他大型研究,以确定需要口服CPAP的临床情况的范围。

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