Elshahaat Hadeer Ahmed, Mahfouz Tarek Abd El-Hakeem, Elshora Ashraf Elsyed, Shaker Amany
Chest Department, Zagazig University's Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig, Egypt.
Int J Gen Med. 2021 Dec 21;14:10103-10115. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S344217. eCollection 2021.
Patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome are mainly treated with continuous positive airway pressure. Polysomnography-guided full-night manual titration is the gold standard for continuous positive airway pressure titration, but it is cost-, time-, and effort-consuming. Alternative ways of titration are easier with less cost, time, and effort. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, the need to establish more safe strategies is increased.
To choose a rapid, efficient, simple, and safe method with less effort and cost in the measurement of a suitable level of positive airway pressure in the management of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.
This study enrolled 48 adult patients who had been diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome at our sleep unit and were candidates for treatment with continuous positive airway pressure according to AASM 2008 after exclusion of other sleep-related breathing disorders. All patients underwent both laboratory full-night manual titration and auto-titration (by Prisma20A of WEINMANN medical technology, Germany). Manual titration pressure and P95 of auto-titration were obtained and compared with calculated pressures by five predictive formulas (Miljeteig and Hoffstein, Sériès, Stradling, Loredo, and Lee).
Patients included in the study were 25 females (52.1%) and 23 males (47.9%) with a mean±SD of age of 49.98±10.36 years. Mean±SD of manual pressure was 10.44±2.49 cmHO, P95 was 10.16±2.64 cmHO, and calculated pressures by different equations were: Miljeteig and Hoffstein, 8.53±2.03; Sériès, 11.40±1.81; Stradling, 9.68±1.65; Loredo, 9.90±1.79; and Lee, 10.61±2.68 cmHO. No significant differences were reported between manual pressure and pressures of auto-titration with Sériès, Stradling, Loredo, and Lee equations (=0.112, 0.09, 0.212, 0.213, and 0.657, respectively).
Auto-titration can be used as an effective alternative to manual titration with less cost and effort and is more comfortable to patients. Predictive formulas can be used instead of standard and auto-titration especially in resource-limited facilities and in pandemics.
阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停综合征患者主要采用持续气道正压通气治疗。多导睡眠图引导下的全夜手动滴定是持续气道正压通气滴定的金标准,但成本高、耗时且费力。替代滴定方法更简便,成本更低、耗时更少且省力。在新冠疫情时代,建立更安全策略的需求增加。
在阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停综合征管理中,选择一种快速、高效、简单且安全的方法,以更低的工作量和成本测量合适的气道正压水平。
本研究纳入了48例成年患者,这些患者在我们的睡眠单元被诊断为阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停综合征,且根据美国睡眠医学学会2008年标准,在排除其他睡眠相关呼吸障碍后,符合持续气道正压通气治疗条件。所有患者均接受了实验室全夜手动滴定和自动滴定(使用德国万曼医疗技术公司的Prisma20A)。获取手动滴定压力和自动滴定的P95,并与五个预测公式(米尔耶泰格和霍夫斯坦、塞里耶、斯特拉德林、洛雷多和李公式)计算出的压力进行比较。
纳入研究的患者中,女性25例(52.1%),男性23例(47.9%),平均年龄±标准差为49.98±10.36岁。手动压力的平均±标准差为10.44±2.49 cmH₂O,P95为10.16±2.64 cmH₂O,不同公式计算出的压力分别为:米尔耶泰格和霍夫斯坦公式,8.53±2.03;塞里耶公式,11.40±1.81;斯特拉德林公式,9.68±1.65;洛雷多公式,9.90±1.79;李公式,10.61±2.68 cmH₂O。手动压力与塞里耶、斯特拉德林、洛雷多和李公式自动滴定压力之间无显著差异(分别为P = 0.112、0.09、0.212、0.213和0.657)。
自动滴定可作为手动滴定的有效替代方法,成本更低、工作量更小,且患者更舒适。预测公式可替代标准滴定和自动滴定,尤其适用于资源有限的机构和疫情期间。