Suppr超能文献

BPAP 是肥胖 OSA 患者常规 CPAP 治疗失败后的有效二线治疗方法:一项前瞻性观察队列研究。

BPAP is an effective second-line therapy for obese patients with OSA failing regular CPAP: A prospective observational cohort study.

机构信息

Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Centre for Human and Applied Physiological Science (CHAPS), King's College London, London, UK.

Lane Fox Respiratory Unit, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

出版信息

Respirology. 2020 Apr;25(4):443-448. doi: 10.1111/resp.13674. Epub 2019 Aug 12.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the most common treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), but many patients fail long-term therapy. Bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) is a potential alternative. We hypothesized that BPAP could improve treatment adherence and outcomes in patients who cannot tolerate CPAP.

METHODS

Patients with OSA who failed CPAP (usage < 4 h/day) and were referred to a tertiary sleep centre between 2014 and 2017 for BPAP were included. Age, gender, body mass index (BMI), co-morbidities, CPAP use and reasons for failure, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), sleep study data, spirometry data and average maximum nightly compliance were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 52 patients with OSA requiring CPAP > 15 cm H O (71% male, age: 58 (15) years, BMI: 42.6 (10.1) kg/m , apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI): 51.1 (30.4)/h) were studied; 62% had respiratory co-morbidities affecting nocturnal breathing including obesity hypoventilation syndrome and COPD; 25% had neuromuscular conditions; and 17% had cardiovascular disease. CPAP was used for 199 (106-477) days prior to referral for BPAP. Reasons for CPAP failure were intolerant pressures (23%), uncontrolled symptoms (23%), mask problems (21%), adverse effects (13%), claustrophobia (8%), co-morbidities (8%) and other issues (4%). Lower expiratory positive airway pressures were needed with BPAP compared to CPAP (10 (8-12) vs 16.8 (15.7-19.2) cm H O, P = 0.001); patients achieved better adherence to BPAP (7.0 (4.0-8.5) vs 2.5 (1.6-6.7) h/night, P = 0.028) and better symptom control (ESS: 4.0 (1.0-7.0) vs 10.0 (6.0-17.0) points, P = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

In patients with moderate-severe OSA who fail CPAP therapy due to low adherence, BPAP is well tolerated and achieves sufficient control of sleep-disordered breathing and its symptoms.

摘要

背景与目的

持续气道正压通气(CPAP)是治疗阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)最常用的方法,但许多患者无法长期接受治疗。双水平气道正压通气(BPAP)是一种潜在的替代方法。我们假设 BPAP 可以改善无法耐受 CPAP 治疗的患者的治疗依从性和疗效。

方法

纳入 2014 年至 2017 年间因 CPAP(使用时间<4 小时/天)失败而转诊至三级睡眠中心的 OSA 患者。记录患者的年龄、性别、体重指数(BMI)、合并症、CPAP 使用情况和失败原因、嗜睡量表(ESS)、睡眠研究数据、肺功能数据和平均最大夜间依从性。

结果

共纳入 52 例需要 CPAP>15cmH2O(71%为男性,年龄:58(15)岁,BMI:42.6(10.1)kg/m2,呼吸暂停低通气指数(AHI):51.1(30.4)/h)的 OSA 患者;62%的患者存在影响夜间呼吸的呼吸相关合并症,包括肥胖低通气综合征和 COPD;25%的患者存在神经肌肉疾病;17%的患者存在心血管疾病。CPAP 使用时间为 199(106-477)天,然后转诊接受 BPAP 治疗。CPAP 失败的原因包括不能耐受压力(23%)、症状未得到控制(23%)、面罩问题(21%)、不良反应(13%)、幽闭恐惧症(8%)、合并症(8%)和其他问题(4%)。与 CPAP 相比,BPAP 需要的呼气正压较低(10(8-12)vs 16.8(15.7-19.2)cmH2O,P=0.001);患者对 BPAP 的依从性更好(7.0(4.0-8.5)vs 2.5(1.6-6.7)小时/夜,P=0.028),症状控制更好(ESS:4.0(1.0-7.0)vs 10.0(6.0-17.0)分,P=0.039)。

结论

对于因依从性低而 CPAP 治疗失败的中重度 OSA 患者,BPAP 耐受性良好,可充分控制睡眠呼吸障碍及其症状。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验