Ficker J H, Wiest G H, Lehnert G, Fischer C J, Katalinic A, Hahn E G
Abteilung Pneumologie, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1997 Nov 28;122(48):1482-8. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1047789.
The efficacy and acceptance of self-regulated continuous positive airway pressure (auto-CPAP) ventilation was compared with conventional CPAP administration in the treatment of patients with obstructive sleep apnoea.
Using a cross-over design, under polysomnographic monitoring in a sleep laboratory, 25 patients with obstructive sleep apnoea underwent conventional CPAP or auto-CPAP treatment. Using a questionnaire, patients gave their assessment of its acceptability and efficacy after each treatment session.
The mean pressure during treatment was the same in the two groups (7.2 +/- 1.9 versus 7.1 +/- 1.9 mbar; no significant difference). Maximal pressure during auto-CPAP averaged 3.7 +/- 2.1 mbar higher than during conventional CPAP ventilation. The mean apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) during auto-CPAP, 4.4 +/- 4.3 mbar, during auto-CPAP was significantly higher than during conventional CPAP treatment (2.8 +/- 2.8 mbar; P = 0.044). In eight patients on auto-CPAP an AHI of 5 or less could not be reached, while an AHI of 5 or less was obtained in all but three patients under conventional CPAP. In a subgroup of 17 patients, in whom a reduction of AHI to at most 5 was achieved with both conventional and auto-CPAP, analysis of sleep pattern and of arousals was similar with the two forms of ventilation. Several patients reported that with auto-CPAP falling in sleep was more difficult and they slept less well. None of the patients preferred auto-CPAP.
By means of the auto-CPAP neither a pressure reduction nor an improvement in compliance could be achieved. Therapeutic effectiveness was significantly less as with conventional CPAP therapy.
比较自动调压持续气道正压通气(auto-CPAP)与传统持续气道正压通气(CPAP)治疗阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停患者的疗效及患者接受度。
采用交叉设计,在睡眠实验室多导睡眠图监测下,25例阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停患者接受传统CPAP或auto-CPAP治疗。患者在每次治疗后通过问卷对其可接受性和疗效进行评估。
两组治疗期间的平均压力相同(7.2±1.9与7.1±1.9毫巴;无显著差异)。auto-CPAP期间的最大压力平均比传统CPAP通气时高3.7±2.1毫巴。auto-CPAP期间的平均呼吸暂停低通气指数(AHI)为4.4±4.3,明显高于传统CPAP治疗期间(2.8±2.8;P = 0.044)。8例使用auto-CPAP的患者无法达到AHI为5或更低,而传统CPAP治疗下除3例患者外所有患者均达到AHI为5或更低。在17例患者的亚组中,传统CPAP和auto-CPAP均使AHI最多降至5,两种通气方式的睡眠模式和觉醒分析相似。数名患者报告使用auto-CPAP入睡更困难且睡眠质量较差。没有患者更喜欢auto-CPAP。
采用auto-CPAP既无法降低压力也无法提高依从性。其治疗效果明显低于传统CPAP治疗。