Sleep Unit, Pulmonary Department, Helsinki University Hospital, P.O. Box 160, Helsinki 00029, Finland.
Sleep Breath. 2013 May;17(2):667-72. doi: 10.1007/s11325-012-0740-0. Epub 2012 Jul 5.
This study aimed to evaluate the care receiver's satisfaction with the continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) interfaces.
A questionnaire with visual analog scales was sent to all our CPAP patients (0 = absolutely unsatisfied, 100 = very satisfied). From the ResMed ResScan program, we obtained the CPAP daily use and air leak values.
We received 730 answers (70 % of participants); females comprised 22 %. A total of 391 patients had ResMed interfaces, 227 had Respironics, 87 had Fisher & Paykel (F&P), and 25 patients had other interfaces. Interfaces were nasal for 79 %, nasal pillows for 9 %, oronasal for 9 %, and unidentified for 3 % of cases. The mean ± SD satisfaction rate was 68 ± 25. No statistically significant differences were found regarding the type or brand of interface, previous interface experience, or the age or gender of the patient. Users of ResMed interfaces had significantly (p < 0.01) fewer cases of disturbing leaks than did users of Respironics or F&P interfaces (60 vs. 70 and 72 %, respectively). The ResMed Ultra Mirage interface had the fewest cases of disturbing leaks. Values for the measured median leaks were a mean of 5.9 ± 7.2 l/min, and those for the maximum leaks were 39.3 ± 22.2 l/min with no differences between brands. The users of F&P interfaces experienced significantly (p < 0.01) more comfort and used the CPAP device significantly (p < 0.007) more than did users of ResMed or Respironics interfaces (88 % of cases vs. 65 and 57 % and 6.2 ± 2.6 vs. 5.3 ± 2.8 or 5.8 ± 2.8 h/day, respectively).
The majority of patients consider the use of the CPAP interface disturbing even though the satisfaction rate is good with no differences between brands.
本研究旨在评估护理接受者对持续气道正压通气（CPAP）接口的满意度。
我们向所有 CPAP 患者发送了一份带有视觉模拟量表的问卷（0=非常不满意，100=非常满意）。从 ResMed ResScan 程序中，我们获得了 CPAP 的日常使用和空气泄漏值。
我们收到了 730 份回答（占参与者的 70%）；女性占 22%。共有 391 名患者使用 ResMed 接口，227 名患者使用 Respironics 接口，87 名患者使用 Fisher & Paykel（F&P）接口，25 名患者使用其他接口。接口类型为鼻式占 79%，鼻枕式占 9%，口鼻式占 9%，无法识别的占 3%。满意度平均值为 68±25。接口类型或品牌、患者之前的接口使用经验、年龄或性别与满意度之间没有显著差异。使用 ResMed 接口的患者发生扰流漏的情况明显（p<0.01）少于使用 Respironics 或 F&P 接口的患者（分别为 60%、70%和 72%）。ResMed Ultra Mirage 接口扰流漏的发生率最低。测量的中位泄漏值的平均值为 5.9±7.2 l/min，最大泄漏值为 39.3±22.2 l/min，各品牌之间无差异。使用 F&P 接口的患者舒适度明显（p<0.01）更高，使用 CPAP 设备的时间明显（p<0.007）更长，分别为 88%、65%、57%和 6.2±2.6、5.3±2.8、5.8±2.8 h/天。
尽管品牌之间的满意度没有差异，但大多数患者认为 CPAP 接口的使用存在干扰。
