These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Prospective randomized comparison of impedance-controlled auto-continuous positive airway pressure (APAP(FOT)) with constant CPAP.
    Author: Randerath WJ, Galetke W, David M, Siebrecht H, Sanner B, Rühle K.
    Journal: Sleep Med; 2001 Mar; 2(2):115-124. PubMed ID: 11226860.
    Abstract:
    Background: The measurement of impedance permits reliable detection of obstructive apneas, hypopneas and upper airways resistance syndrome.Objective: To establish whether impedance-controlled self-adjusting positive airway pressure therapy (APAP(FOT)) is equally as good as constant continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in the treatment of sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS).Methods: Twenty men and five women with OSAS (age 52.8+/-9.0 years, body mass index (BMI) 31.4+/-5.0 kg/m(2), AHI 32.2+/-18.1/h (mean+/-SD)) underwent baseline polysomnography, manual CPAP titration and two nights of treatment, one with APAP(FOT), one with constant CPAP.Results: With both modes, a significant reduction in respiratory disturbances was seen (apnea/hypopnea index (AHI) baseline 32.2+/-18.1/h, constant CPAP 6.6+/-8.7, APAP(FOT) 5.5+/-3.8/h, P<0.001 baseline vs. each treatment mode). Under APAP(FOT), the sleep profile was normalized (S3/4 baseline 16.3+/-13.9% total sleep time (TST), APAP(FOT) 21.6+/-10.9% TST, P<0.05, rapid eye movement (REM) 14.2+/-6.7% TST vs. 20.3+/-7.3% TST, P<0.01), while with constant CPAP, a tendency towards improvement was found. The mean treatment pressure with APAP(FOT) was significantly lower than the constant CPAP (5.7+/-2.1 vs. 8.3+/-1.6 mbar, P<0.001).Conclusion: We conclude that APAP(FOT) is at least as effective as constant CPAP in normalizing sleep and breathing in OSAS.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]