A randomized crossover efficacy trial of oral CPAP (Oracle) compared with nasal CPAP in the management of obstructive sleep apnea-猫眼课题宝

DOI：

10.1093/sleep/26.6.721

发表时间：

2003-09-15

期刊：

SLEEP

影响因子：

5.6

通讯作者：

中科院分区：

医学2区

文献类型：

作者：

Anderson, FE;Kingshott, RN;Whyte, KF

设计：随机、单盲、交叉研究。地点：医院睡眠实验室。患者或参与者：21例未接受持续正压治疗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：鼻腔持续正压治疗和口服持续正压治疗。测量和结果：患者接受鼻腔持续正压治疗和口服持续正压治疗各4周。在每个治疗臂开始时进行CPAP滴定。在基线和每个治疗组结束时记录结果测量。这些包括多导睡眠图变量、CPAP依从性、主观嗜睡度、阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停症状分级和不良反应。两组患者呼吸暂停、低呼吸的发生率差异无统计学意义(鼻-口[95%CI]=-4.6[-10.1~1.0]/h；P=0.06)或觉醒(-3.0[-7.8~1.8]/h；P=0.23)。艾普沃思嗜睡量表评分(-0.70[-3.1-1.71；P=0.2)、阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停症状评分(-7.7[-17.7-2.4]；P=0.052)、持续气道正压治疗依从性(0.3[-0.5-1.1]小时/晚；P=0.5)、排便压力(0.05[0.66-0.761]cmH20；CPAP副反应评分(-2.0[-5.3~1.4]，P=0.2 3)、口罩偏好(P=0.407)。此外，鼻腔和口腔接口均显著改善了多导睡眠监测变量、Epworth嗜睡量表评分、阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停症状和CPAP依从性(均P

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 CPAPMeasurements 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 [-3.1-1.71; P=0.20), obstructive sleep apnea symptoms (-7.7 [-17.7-2.4]; P=0.052), CPAP compliance (0.3 [-0.5-1.1] h/night; P=0.50), CRAP pressure (0.05 [0.66-0.761] 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

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

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献