Suppr超能文献

比较便捷式振动体位装置与 CPAP 在体位性阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停中的治疗效果:一项交叉随机对照试验。

Comparing treatment effects of a convenient vibratory positional device to CPAP in positional OSA: a crossover randomised controlled trial.

机构信息

Department of Sleep Medicine, Surgery and Science, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.

出版信息

Thorax. 2020 Apr;75(4):331-337. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2019-213547. Epub 2020 Jan 2.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Up to 77% of patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) have positional OSA (POSA) but traditional positional therapy (PT) methods have failed as they were poorly tolerated. New convenient vibratory PT devices have been invented but while recent studies suggest high treatment efficacy and adherence, there are no published data comparing these devices directly with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Our objective is to evaluate if a convenient vibratory PT device is non-inferior to CPAP in POSA treatment.

METHODS

In this crossover randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients with POSA with significant daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS)≥10). POSA diagnosis was based on: (1) total Apnoea/Hypopnoea Index (AHI)>10/hour and non-supine AHI<10/hour (2) supine AHI≥2 × non-supine AHI. Patients used their initial allocated devices (PT or CPAP) for 8 weeks before crossing to the alternative intervention after a 1 week washout. The primary aim is to measure changes in ESS between the two treatments. Secondary outcomes include sleep study parameters and patient treatment preference (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03125512).

RESULTS

40 patients completed the trial between April 2017 and December 2018. Difference in ESS after 8 weeks of device use (PT minus CPAP) was 2.0 (95% CI 0.68 to 3.32), exceeding our predetermined non-inferiority margin of 1.5. AHI on CPAP was lower than with PT (4.0±3.2 vs 13.0±13.8 events/hour, respectively, p=0.001), although both were lower than at baseline. Time spent supine was significantly lower with PT than CPAP (p<0.001). 60% of patients preferred CPAP, 20% preferred PT, while 20% preferred neither device.

CONCLUSIONS

The non-inferiority ESS endpoint for PT compared with CPAP was not met and the results were inconclusive. Future trials with larger sample sizes or in less symptomatic patients are warranted to provide further insight into the role of these new vibratory PT devices.

摘要

目的

多达 77%的阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)患者存在体位性 OSA(POSA),但传统的体位治疗(PT)方法效果不佳,因为患者难以耐受。新型便捷的振动式 PT 设备已经问世,但最近的研究表明这些设备具有较高的治疗效果和依从性,然而,目前尚无研究直接比较这些设备与持续气道正压通气(CPAP)。我们的目的是评估便捷的振动式 PT 设备在 POSA 治疗中是否不劣于 CPAP。

方法

本交叉随机对照试验纳入了白天嗜睡(Epworth 睡眠量表(ESS)≥10)的 POSA 患者。POSA 的诊断基于:(1)总呼吸暂停/低通气指数(AHI)>10/小时,且非仰卧位 AHI<10/小时;(2)仰卧位 AHI≥2×非仰卧位 AHI。患者在 8 周的初始分配设备(PT 或 CPAP)治疗后,经过 1 周洗脱期后交叉使用替代干预措施。主要目的是测量两种治疗方法之间 ESS 的变化。次要结局包括睡眠研究参数和患者治疗偏好(ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT03125512)。

结果

2017 年 4 月至 2018 年 12 月期间,40 例患者完成了试验。使用设备 8 周后 ESS 的差异(PT 减去 CPAP)为 2.0(95%CI 0.68 至 3.32),超过了我们预设的 1.5 非劣效性边界。CPAP 时的 AHI 低于 PT(分别为 4.0±3.2 和 13.0±13.8 事件/小时,p=0.001),尽管两者均低于基线。PT 时的仰卧位时间明显低于 CPAP(p<0.001)。60%的患者更喜欢 CPAP,20%更喜欢 PT,而 20%的患者两种设备都不喜欢。

结论

PT 与 CPAP 相比,ESS 的非劣效性终点未达到,结果不确定。需要更大样本量或在症状较轻的患者中进行进一步的试验,以深入了解这些新型振动式 PT 设备的作用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/43ae/7231442/79f51e2a612f/thoraxjnl-2019-213547f01.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验