Sleep Disorders Center, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022 Jan 1;148(1):61-69. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2021.2245.
Hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HNS) and positive airway pressure (PAP) have been shown to improve patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). However, to our knowledge, there are no data that compare change in PROs between HNS and PAP or that indicate whether HNS improves comorbid insomnia or depression in the long term.
To determine whether HNS is associated with improvements in patient-reported sleepiness, insomnia, and depression in the long term and to compare the respective associations of HNS and PAP with improved PROs.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study used data from patients treated at the Cleveland Clinic for OSA. Participants received either HNS (referred sample) from November 1, 2015, to September 31, 2018, or PAP (previous cohort) from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014, for OSA. Patients were matched 3:1 for PAP:HNS based on age, body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), sex, and apnea hypopnea index (AHI). Data were collected at baseline and at prespecified follow-up points. Data were analyzed from March 26, 2020, to September 9, 2021.
Treatment with HNS vs PAP.
Data collected included AHI and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; depression) scores.
Among 85 patients receiving HNS (mean [SD] age, 62.8 [9.5] years; 59 men [69.4%]; 77 White patients [90.6%]; mean [SD] BMI, 28.8 [3.1]), compared with 217 matched patients receiving PAP (mean [SD] age, 62.1 [9.9] years; 157 men [72.4%]; 173 White patients [81.2%]; mean [SD] BMI, 29.5 [3.1]) included in the analysis, significant improvements were seen in PHQ-9 scores for HNS vs PAP (least square means, -4.06 [95% CI, -5.34 to -2.79] vs -2.58 [95% CI, -3.35 to -1.82]; mean difference, -1.48 [95% CI, -2.78 to -0.19]) with comparable improvements in ESS, FOSQ, and ISI scores. Clinically meaningful differences were observed in 42 of 65 HNS group patients (64.6%) vs 118 PAP group patients (54.5%) for ESS scores, 29 of 49 HNS group patients (59.2%) vs 67 of 217 PAP group patients (30.9%) for FOSQ scores, 14 of 48 HNS group patients (29.2%) vs 53 of 217 PAP group patients (24.4%) for PHQ-9 scores, and 23 of 49 HNS group patients (46.9%) vs 79 of 217 PAP group patients (36.4%) for ISI scores. At the 1-year post-HNS assessment, meaningful improvements were seen in 17 of 28 patients (60.7%) for ESS scores, 11 of 20 patients (55.0%) for FOSQ scores, 7 of 23 patients (30.4%) for PHQ-9 scores, and 11 of 25 patients (44.0%) for ISI scores.
In this cohort study of patients with OSA, sustained improvements in PROs were observed 1 year after HNS and were comparable to those for PAP at 3 months. These findings suggest that HNS is a viable treatment for improving insomnia and depression in patients with OSA.
舌下神经刺激(HNS)和正压通气(PAP)已被证明可改善阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)患者的报告结局(PROs)。然而,据我们所知,尚无数据比较 HNS 和 PAP 之间的 PRO 改善情况,也没有数据表明 HNS 是否可以长期改善合并的失眠或抑郁。
确定 HNS 是否与长期患者报告的嗜睡、失眠和抑郁改善相关,并比较 HNS 和 PAP 各自与 PRO 改善的相关性。
设计、设置和参与者:这是一项回顾性队列研究,使用克利夫兰诊所治疗 OSA 患者的数据。参与者接受 HNS(参考样本)治疗,时间为 2015 年 11 月 1 日至 2018 年 9 月 31 日,或接受 PAP(既往队列)治疗,时间为 2010 年 1 月 1 日至 2014 年 12 月 31 日,用于治疗 OSA。根据年龄、体重指数(BMI;体重以千克为单位除以身高以米为单位)、性别和呼吸暂停低通气指数(AHI),将患者以 3:1 的比例匹配接受 PAP:HNS。收集基线和预定随访点的数据。数据分析时间为 2020 年 3 月 26 日至 2021 年 9 月 9 日。
HNS 与 PAP 治疗。
收集的数据包括 AHI 和 Epworth 嗜睡量表(ESS)、睡眠功能结果问卷(FOSQ)、失眠严重程度指数(ISI)和患者健康问卷-9(PHQ-9;抑郁)评分。
在 85 名接受 HNS 治疗的患者中(平均[SD]年龄,62.8[9.5]岁;59 名男性[69.4%];77 名白人患者[90.6%];平均[SD]BMI,28.8[3.1]),与 217 名接受 PAP 治疗的匹配患者(平均[SD]年龄,62.1[9.9]岁;157 名男性[72.4%];173 名白人患者[81.2%];平均[SD]BMI,29.5[3.1])相比,HNS 组患者的 PHQ-9 评分显著改善(最小二乘均值,-4.06[95%CI,-5.34 至-2.79]与-2.58[95%CI,-3.35 至-1.82];平均差异,-1.48[95%CI,-2.78 至-0.19]),ESS、FOSQ 和 ISI 评分也有类似的改善。HNS 组 65 名患者中有 42 名(64.6%)和 PAP 组 217 名患者中有 118 名(54.5%)的 ESS 评分有临床显著差异,HNS 组 49 名患者中有 29 名(59.2%)和 PAP 组 217 名患者中有 67 名(30.9%)的 FOSQ 评分有临床显著差异,HNS 组 48 名患者中有 14 名(29.2%)和 PAP 组 217 名患者中有 53 名(24.4%)的 PHQ-9 评分有临床显著差异,HNS 组 49 名患者中有 23 名(46.9%)和 PAP 组 217 名患者中有 79 名(36.4%)的 ISI 评分有临床显著差异。在 HNS 后 1 年的评估中,HNS 组 28 名患者中有 17 名(60.7%)的 ESS 评分、20 名患者中有 11 名(55.0%)的 FOSQ 评分、23 名患者中有 7 名(30.4%)的 PHQ-9 评分和 25 名患者中有 11 名(44.0%)的 ISI 评分有显著改善。
在这项 OSA 患者的队列研究中,HNS 治疗后 1 年观察到 PRO 持续改善,与 PAP 治疗 3 个月时的改善相当。这些发现表明,HNS 是改善 OSA 患者失眠和抑郁的一种可行治疗方法。