Behbehani K, Yen F C, Lucas E A, Burk J R
Joint Biomedical Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington, USA.
Sleep. 1998 Aug 1;21(5):485-91. doi: 10.1093/sleep/21.5.485.
This paper compares the performance of an experimental nasal positive airway pressure device that automatically adjusts the level of applied pressure (APAP) with the performance of a conventional continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in a sleep laboratory study.
In a randomized sequence, conventional CPAP therapy was applied for 1 night (CPAP night) and APAP therapy the following night (APAP night).
The study was conducted in an accredited sleep disorders center.
Twenty-six men and 5 women between the ages of 35 to 73 (51 +/- 9.6) years with body mass index 35.82 +/- 8.35 (kg/m2) who were diagnosed (using standard nocturnal polysomnography [NPSG] methods) as having OSA syndrome were studied. The subjects were treated with conventional CPAP for approximately 8 (7.79 +/- 3.16) weeks at home prior to their participation in this study.
All standard polysomnography data and nasal mask pressures were recorded using a computer-based data acquisition system. Sleep and respiratory data were scored by a registered polysomnographer. The mean apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) for subjects for the NPSG night was 55.2 +/- 33.7. It dropped to 4.2 +/- 3.8 for the CPAP night and to 5.4 +/- 5.4 for the APAP night. There was no significant (p = 0.05) difference between mean AHI indices, sleep stages, sleep stage shifts, and snore arousals for CPAP night and APAP night. However, all the measures showed significant (p = 0.05) improvement over NPSG night. The mean of APAP applied pressure (8.4 +/- 3.3 cm H2O) was significantly (p = 0.05) lower than the prescribed pressure (11.5 +/- 3.1 cm H2O), but there was no significant (p = 0.05) difference between the maximum APAP applied pressure (12.8 +/- 4.3 cm H2O) and the prescribed pressure (11.5 +/- 3.1 cm H2O). All mean comparison tests were carried out using two-tailed statistics.
APAP appears to be as effective as CPAP in treating OSA patients. APAP delivers the same level of therapy as CPAP, but it reduces the average airway pressure while providing needed peak pressures.
本文在一项睡眠实验室研究中,比较了一种能自动调节施加压力水平的实验性鼻持续气道正压通气设备(APAP)与传统持续气道正压通气(CPAP)的性能。
按照随机顺序,先进行1晚的传统CPAP治疗(CPAP夜),次日晚进行APAP治疗(APAP夜)。
该研究在一家经认可的睡眠障碍中心进行。
研究了26名男性和5名女性,年龄在35至73(51±9.6)岁之间,体重指数为35.82±8.35(kg/m²),经诊断(采用标准夜间多导睡眠图[NPSG]方法)患有阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停综合征(OSA)。这些受试者在参与本研究前,已在家中接受约8(7.79±3.16)周的传统CPAP治疗。
所有标准多导睡眠图数据和鼻面罩压力均使用基于计算机的数据采集系统进行记录。睡眠和呼吸数据由注册多导睡眠图技师评分。NPSG夜受试者的平均呼吸暂停低通气指数(AHI)为55.2±33.7。CPAP夜降至4.2±3.8,APAP夜降至5.4±5.4。CPAP夜和APAP夜的平均AHI指数、睡眠阶段、睡眠阶段转换和打鼾唤醒之间无显著(p = 0.05)差异。然而,所有指标与NPSG夜相比均有显著(p = 0.05)改善。APAP施加压力的平均值(8.4±3.3 cmH₂O)显著(p = 0.05)低于规定压力(11.5±3.1 cmH₂O),但APAP最大施加压力(12.8±4.3 cmH₂O)与规定压力(11.5±3.1 cmH₂O)之间无显著(p = 0.05)差异。所有均值比较测试均采用双侧统计。
APAP在治疗OSA患者方面似乎与CPAP一样有效。APAP提供与CPAP相同水平的治疗,但在提供所需峰值压力的同时降低了平均气道压力。