Hudgel D W, Fung C
Case Western Reserve University, Pulmonary Division, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH 44109-1998, USA.
Sleep. 2000 Aug 1;23(5):645-8.
This study is a 12-week randomized, cross-over, single-blind comparison of the tolerance, compliance, and symptomatic improvement obtained with standard nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs. an auto-titrating, self-adjusting device (APAP). Sixty newly diagnosed patients, 53 with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and seven with upper airway resistance syndrome were studied. Thirty-nine patients (65%) completed the 24-week protocol. Data were complete in 33. In these 33 patients CPAP and APAP reduced the Epworth Sleepiness score from 15+/-1 (+/-SEM) to 8+/-1 and 9+/-1 respectively (both <0.0001 from baseline but NS between modes). The APAP average pressure was lower than the CPAP pressure, 6.4+/-0.4 and 10.6+/-0.4 cm H20, respectively. The average daily machine use was greater with APAP, 6.0+/-0.3 hrs. versus 5.5+/-0.3 hrs. with CPAP (P < 0.04). The number of days of machine use, and the pattern of use were not different between CPAP and APAP. A higher proportion of patients who did not complete the study was randomized to CPAP for their initial treatment period. This study showed that: 1) CPAP and APAP produced an equivalent improvement in daytime sleepiness, 2) APAP pressure was lower than CPAP pressure, 3) patients wore the APAP device longer during nights they used the pressure support system, and 4) patients who began the study with APAP were more prone to continue treatment. We conclude that APAP was better tolerated and used a greater number of hours than CPAP, but the extent of improvement in excessive daytime sleepiness was similar between the two modes of therapy.
本研究是一项为期12周的随机、交叉、单盲比较,对比标准鼻持续气道正压通气(CPAP)与自动调压、自我调节设备(APAP)在耐受性、依从性和症状改善方面的情况。研究了60例新诊断患者,其中53例患有阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA),7例患有上气道阻力综合征。39例患者(65%)完成了24周的方案。33例患者数据完整。在这33例患者中,CPAP和APAP分别将Epworth嗜睡评分从15±1(±SEM)降至8±1和9±1(两者均与基线相比<0.0001,但两种模式之间无统计学差异)。APAP的平均压力低于CPAP压力,分别为6.4±0.4和10.6±0.4 cm H20。APAP的平均每日机器使用时间更长,为6.0±0.3小时,而CPAP为5.5±0.3小时(P<0.04)。CPAP和APAP之间的机器使用天数和使用模式没有差异。未完成研究的患者中有更高比例在初始治疗期被随机分配至CPAP组。本研究表明:1)CPAP和APAP在改善日间嗜睡方面效果相当;2)APAP压力低于CPAP压力;3)患者在使用压力支持系统的夜间佩戴APAP设备的时间更长;4)以APAP开始研究的患者更倾向于继续治疗。我们得出结论,与CPAP相比,APAP耐受性更好,使用时间更长,但两种治疗模式在改善日间过度嗜睡方面的程度相似。