Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Evaluation of an auto-CPAP device for treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea
Ficker JH, Wiest GH, Lehnert G, Wiest B, Hahn EG
Thorax 1998 Aug;53(8):643-648
clinical trial
8/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: Yes; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: Auto-CPAP machines used in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) are designed to vary the treatment pressure automatically in order always to apply the actually needed pressure. Consequently they should be able to achieve at least identical therapeutic effects as conventional constant pressure CPAP with a lower mean treatment pressure. The present study was designed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and the treatment pressure of an auto-CPAP machine (REM+auto, SEFAM) in comparison with a conventional CPAP device. METHODS: Following CPAP titration, 16 patients with OSA were allocated to receive conventional CPAP and auto-CPAP treatment under polysomnographic control in a randomised order. After each treatment the patients were asked to assess the therapy using a questionnaire; a vigilance test was also carried out and subjective daytime sleepiness was evaluated using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). RESULTS: The mean (SD) apnoea/hypopnoea index (AHI) during auto-CPAP treatment was comparable with that during conventional CPAP treatment (4.2 (5.1) versus 3.6 (4.0)). Neither an analysis of sleep architecture nor the arousal index (7.4 (4.1) versus 7.0 (4.3)) revealed any significant differences. Daytime sleepiness measured with the ESS was also comparable (5.3 (3.4) versus 6.5 (4.2)). The vigilance test showed normal values after both treatments in all patients with no significant differences. The mean pressure during auto-CPAP treatment (8.1 (2.9) mbar), however, was significantly higher than that employed in conventional CPAP treatment (7.6 (2.7) mbar; mean difference 0.5 mbar; 95% CI 0.1 to 0.9 mbar; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Auto-CPAP was equally as effective as conventional CPAP with respect to therapeutic efficacy. The aim of reducing the treatment pressure with auto-CPAP, however, was not achieved.
Reproduced with permission from the BMJ Publishing Group.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help