Wiest G H, Lehnert G, Brûck W M, Meyer M, Hahn E G, Ficker J H
Medical Department, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany.
Respir Med. 1999 Jan;93(1):21-6. doi: 10.1016/s0954-6111(99)90072-0.
Upper airway dryness is a frequent side-effect of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) therapy in obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). In this situation, heated humidification is often used. Alternatively, oily nose drops are frequently applied to relieve dryness. The present study aimed to investigate the efficacy of a heated humidifier in comparison with oily nose drops. Twenty-four OSA patients complaining of serious nCPAP-related upper airway dryness were randomized to 6 weeks of treatment either with heated humidification (HC 100, Fischer & Paykel, Inc., Auckland, New Zealand) or oily nose drops (Colda-Stop, Desitin, Inc., Germany). The patients completed questionnaires on the degree and frequency of upper airway dryness, compliance with nCPAP, intention to terminate nCPAP and comfort during the nCPAP therapy. All 12 patients treated with heated humidification improved in terms of the degree and frequency of upper airway dryness, and reported greater comfort when using the nCPAP device. All patients in the heated humidification group intending to terminate nCPAP therapy because of upper airway dryness persisted with nCPAP on addition of humidification. In contrast, only five out of 12 patients (42%) in the oily nose drops group reported their degree of upper airway dryness to be improved (P = 0.003), only three patients (25%) reported an improvement in the frequency of upper airway dryness (P < 0.001), and only five patients (42%) reported greater comfort when using the nCPAP device with oily nose drops (P < 0.001). In the group using oily nose drops none of the three patients who intended to terminate nCPAP therapy persisted with nCPAP. Heated humidification is highly effective and superior to oily nose drops in reducing the symptoms of upper airway dryness during nCPAP.
上气道干燥是阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停（OSA）患者使用鼻持续气道正压通气（nCPAP）治疗时常见的副作用。在这种情况下，常采用加热湿化。另外，也经常使用油性滴鼻剂来缓解干燥。本研究旨在比较加热湿化器与油性滴鼻剂的疗效。24例抱怨nCPAP相关严重上气道干燥的OSA患者被随机分为两组，分别接受为期6周的加热湿化治疗（HC 100，费雪派克医疗保健公司，新西兰奥克兰）或油性滴鼻剂治疗（Colda-Stop，德适宝公司，德国）。患者完成了关于上气道干燥程度和频率、nCPAP依从性、终止nCPAP的意愿以及nCPAP治疗期间舒适度的问卷调查。所有接受加热湿化治疗的12例患者在上气道干燥程度和频率方面均有改善，并且在使用nCPAP设备时报告舒适度更高。所有因上气道干燥而打算终止nCPAP治疗的加热湿化组患者在增加湿化后继续使用nCPAP。相比之下，油性滴鼻剂组12例患者中只有5例（42%）报告上气道干燥程度有所改善（P = 0.003），只有3例患者（25%）报告上气道干燥频率有所改善（P < 0.001），只有5例患者（42%）报告在使用带有油性滴鼻剂的nCPAP设备时舒适度更高（P < 0.001）。在使用油性滴鼻剂的组中，打算终止nCPAP治疗的3例患者中没有一人继续使用nCPAP。在减轻nCPAP治疗期间上气道干燥症状方面，加热湿化非常有效且优于油性滴鼻剂。
