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: Titration efficacy of two auto-adjustable continuous positive airway pressure devices using different flow limitation-based algorithms.
    Author: Hertegonne KB, Rombaut B, Houtmeyers P, Van Maele G, Pevernagie DA.
    Journal: Respiration; 2008; 75(1):48-54. PubMed ID: 17541262.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Auto-adjustable continuous positive airway pressure devices are widely used in titration procedures to determine therapeutic pressure levels in obstructive sleep apnea patients. However, differences in operational characteristics may influence the effect on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI). OBJECTIVES: We compared the titration performance of two devices based on detection of inspiratory flow limitation, i.e. the Respironics REMstar Auto (RR) and the ResMed Spirit (RS). METHODS: Fifty obstructive sleep apnea patients were recruited for a double-blind randomized crossover trial. Both devices were employed overnight by means of split-night polysomnography. The primary outcome was the AHI. Secondary outcome measures were the snoring index, pressure profiles and subjective appraisal of sleep quality assessed the morning after the sleep study. The Wilcoxon signed rank test for matched pairs was applied to assess differences between treatment conditions. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in sleep parameters, subjective sleep quality and snoring index. The use of the RR was associated with a significantly lower AHI in comparison with the RS [mean (SD) 6.9 (11.6)/h vs. 9.4 (9.2)/h, p = 0.004]. This result was obtained at significantly lower pressure levels [P95 9.2 (2.3) cm H(2)O vs. 10.2 (1.5) cm H(2)O, p = 0.001]. CONCLUSION: While the RR provided a lower AHI than the RS at lower pressure levels, it could not be assessed whether this difference was relevant for clinical outcomes. However, this face-to-face comparison of Auto-adjustable continuous positive airway pressure devices seems useful for the assessment of titration efficacy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]