Effect of prone positioning in mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea syndrome

Mechanisms relating to sleeping position to the endotypes of sleep disordered breathing

PURPOSE

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) severity varies considerably depending on the body position during sleep in certain subjects. Such variability may be underpinned by specific, body position-related changes in OSA pathophysiological determinants, or endotypes. Also head position relative to trunk may influence OSA endotypes. However, no studies to our knowledge have reviewed the endotype variations according to head or body position up to now.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several findings illustrate that supine OSA is mostly attributable to unfavorable upper airway anatomy compared to lateral position. However, a reduced lung volume, with consequent ventilatory instability (or elevated loop gain), may also play a role. Furthermore, preliminary findings suggest that prone and reclined positions may have a beneficial effect on collapsibility and loop gain.

SUMMARY

Sleeping supine induces many unfavorable pathophysiological changes, especially in certain predisposed OSA patients. Little is known on the influence of other sleep positions on key endotypic traits.

Safety and usability of proning pillows in intensive care: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Proning is an established technique for the care of intubated patients with severe respiratory failure. Positioning devices used to support the head and body of patients placed in the prone position are often associated with the formation of pressure injuries. Despite robust literature on the prevention and monitoring of pressure injuries, little is described about the role of proning pillows on pressure injuries. The objective of this review is to understand the extent of evidence pertaining to the safety and usability of different types of proning pillows in the intensive care setting.

REVIEW METHOD

A scoping review of the literature was completed using predefined search terms in three databases and identified 296 articles. An additional 26 were included from reference lists. Twenty studies are included in the analysis; most were published in the past 3 years, with >50% in surgical settings.

DATA SOURCES

Three databases were searched: PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE.

REVIEW METHODS

The review followed the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, and data were reviewed using Covidence.

RESULTS

The most prevalent proning pillow is a standard, noncontoured foam head positioner. It is responsible for the majority of facial pressure injuries in all settings of care. Memory foam pillows and helmet-based systems offer improved surface pressure distribution, although their usability in the intensive care setting remains poorly studied. Inflatable air-cell-based devices present an alternative, but the lack of supporting research and the costs may explain their poor uptake. Several articles proposed the use of pressure sensor systems to evaluate devices. We propose a set of ergonomic parametres to consider when choosing or designing a positioning device for proned patients.

CONCLUSION

The evidence pertaining to the safety and usability of proning pillows in the intensive care setting is scarce, which provides opportunities for future research to improve the efficacy in the prevention of pressure injuries and the user experience.

Memory Foam Pillow as an Intervention in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome: A Preliminary Randomized Study

Specific pillow use is a seldom studied or controlled factor in the setting of sleep disordered breathing. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of different pillows [own pillow (OP), memory foam pillow (MFP), generic laboratory pillow (LP)] on polysomnography (PSG)-derived parameters in patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome (OSAS). Thirty-two consecutive patients with OSAS were randomly allocated into two groups with randomized pillow usage [Group A: 3 h with LP and 3 h with OP (Age: 53.8 ± 12.5 years, BMI: 32.1 ± 4.6 kg/m²); Group B: 3 h with LP and 3 h with MFP (Age: 52.0 ± 6.3 years, BMI: 30.6 ± 2.2 kg/m²)]. Statistically significant differences between pillow types were detected in desaturation index and heart rate. In Group B (with MFP), a statistically significant decrease of 47.0 ± 15.9% was observed in snoring events (p < 0.05) and 10.6 ± 6.7% in their duration (p < 0.05) compared to LP. On the other hand, group A with OP recorded a decrease of 29.1 ± 32.1% in snoring events and 32.5 ± 33.1% in duration, but these values were not statistically significant (p > 0.05) compared to LP. These findings indicate that pillow type and usage, often uncontrolled in OSAS studies (contribution to the field), may impact several PSG parameters and are related to a snoring subtype of the syndrome. Secondly, they indicate that a focus on the treatment of the snoring OSAS subtype warrants further dedicated investigation.

Sleep medicine and coronavirus disease 2019

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care of people with sleep disorders, to explore relationships between OSA and COVID-19, and to describe current knowledge of the effect of the pandemic on sleep globally.

RECENT FINDINGS

COVID-19 has led to significant changes in the practice of sleep medicine, including the care of patients with OSA. An OSA diagnosis may portend a worse prognosis with COVID-19, whilst prior COVID-19 may have an impact on sleep breathing.

SUMMARY

The pandemic has caused marked difficulties with access to diagnostic sleep studies and reduced capacity for CPAP initiation. Conversely, adherence to CPAP therapy may have improved, and use of remote consultations and telemonitoring has increased. An OSA diagnosis may be associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19, although any apparent relationship may be attributable to confounding factors, such as obesity and metabolic disease. Small studies have reported some increase in CPAP requirements in OSA patients following COVID-19 infection. More generally, the pandemic has been associated with a deterioration in subjective sleep quality across the population; much of this appears because of increased anxiety and stress. Finally, studies assessing putative links between COVID-19 and REM sleep issues are ongoing.

Positional therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea

BACKGROUND

The modalities of therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) include behavioural and lifestyle modifications, positional therapy, oral appliances, surgery and continuous positive airway pressure therapy (CPAP). Though CPAP has proven efficacy in treating OSA, adherence with CPAP therapy is suboptimal. Positional therapy (to keep people sleeping on their side) is less invasive and therefore expected to have better adherence. This review considered the efficacy of positional therapy compared to CPAP as well as positional therapy against no positional therapy. Devices designed for positional therapy include lumbar or abdominal binders, semi-rigid backpacks, full-length pillows, a tennis ball attached to the back of nightwear, and electrical sensors with alarms that indicate change in position.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of positional therapy versus CPAP and positional therapy versus inactive control (sham intervention or no positional therapy intervention) in people with OSA.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways' Specialised Register (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AHMED and PsycINFO), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization trials portal (ICTRP). It also contains results derived from handsearching of respiratory journals and abstract books of major annual meetings. We searched all databases from their inception to September 2018, with no restrictions on language of publication or publication type.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing positional therapy with CPAP and positional therapy with inactive control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted the data. We used a random-effects model in the meta-analysis to estimate mean differences and confidence intervals. We assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies. The studies randomised 323 participants into two types of interventions. The comparison between positional therapy and CPAP included 72 participants, while the comparison between positional therapy and inactive control included 251 participants. Three studies used supine vibration alarm devices, while five studies used physical positioning like specially designed pillows or semirigid backpacks.Positional therapy versus CPAPThe three studies included for this comparison were randomised cross-over trials. Two studies found that there was no difference in Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores between CPAP and positional therapy. Two studies showed that CPAP produced a greater reduction in Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) with a mean difference (MD) of 6.4 events per hour (95% CI 3.00 to 9.79; low-certainty evidence) compared to positional therapy. Subjective adherence, evaluated in one study, was found to be significantly greater with positional therapy (MD 2.5 hours per night, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.59; moderate-certainty evidence).In terms of secondary outcomes, one study each reported quality-of-life indices and quality-of-sleep indices with no significant difference between the two groups. One study reported cognitive outcomes using multiple parameters and found no difference between the groups. There were insufficient data to comment on other secondary outcomes like respiratory disturbance index (RDI), and frequency and duration of nocturnal desaturation. None of the studies clearly reported adverse effects.Positional therapy versus inactive controlThree studies of positional therapy versus no intervention were randomised cross-over trials, while two studies were parallel-arm studies. Data from two studies showed that positional therapy significantly improved ESS scores (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.89 to -0.29; moderate-certainty evidence). Positional therapy showed a reduction in AHI compared with control (MD -7.38 events per hour, 95% CI -10.06 to -4.7; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adherence. The number of participants who continued to use the device at two months was no different between the two groups (odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94; low-certainty evidence). The same study reported adverse effects, the most common being pain in the back and chest, and sleep disturbance but there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of device discontinuation (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.5 to 3.03; low-certainty evidence). One study each reported quality-of-life indices and quality-of-sleep indices, with no significant difference between the two groups. One study reported cognitive outcome, and found no difference between the groups. There was insufficient evidence to comment on other secondary outcomes (RDI, frequency and duration of nocturnal desaturation).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review found that CPAP has a greater effect on improving AHI compared with positional therapy in positional OSA, while positional therapy was better than inactive control for improving ESS and AHI. Positional therapy may have better adherence than CPAP. There were no significant differences for other clinically relevant outcomes such as quality of life or cognitive function. All the studies were of short duration. We are unable to comment on the long-term effects of the therapies. This is important, as most of the quality-of-life outcomes will be evident only when the therapies are given over a longer period of time. The certainty of evidence was low to moderate.

The possible impact of cervical stenosis on cephalad neuronal dysfunction

Earlier observers have speculated on the causal relationships between abnormal CSF circulation and a variety of neurological dysfunctions. Such speculations have been at least partially validated by recent evidence and inquiries contravening the traditional static viewpoint of CSF circulation. More contemporary inquiries establish a number of factors which influence both CSF production and absorption (sleep disturbance, neck position, cerebral metabolism, brain atrophy, medications, etc.). Thus, transient periods of abnormality are possibly mingled with periods of normality. Such episodic alterations suggest that the physiological arrangements which underpin CSF circulation may be in some ways likened to blood pressure alterations, in that long-standing CSF abnormalities may be both unappreciated and gradual, though virulent enough to cause substantial neurological injury. We suggest that cervical stenosis (blocking an important CSF decompressive pathway into the vertebral canal) is among the largely unappreciated causes of abnormal CSF circulation and may play a role in cephalad neuronal dysfunction. Such a blockage is correlated with age and easily assessed by cine MRI study. Indeed, episodic disturbances can diminish CSF cerebral flow circulation increasing deposition in cerebral parenchyma of contrary metabolic products (e.g. beta Amyloid), possibly having a causal influence on senile dementia. Additionally, cervical stenosis, by increasing posterior fossa cerebral pressure, could play a causal role in a number of afflictions, among them sleep apnea, concomitant respiratory and circulatory dysfunction, hypertension, chronic occipital headaches, tinnitus, etc. We further suggest that among those patients with substantial cervical stenosis (extensive enough to block CSF circulation in the cervical area as identified by cine MRI) appropriate comparative clinical studies could be undertaken to demarcate associations with presenile dementia, sleep disturbance and posterior fossa dysfunction. Additionally, we suggest that an intracranial monitoring implant be perfected to chronically monitor both intracranial pressure and CSF flow - a monitoring device comparable to the rather less invasive sphygmometric evaluation of blood pressure. If such speculations prove correct, different therapeutic regimens which might improve outcome could be imagined. Among them better sleep hygiene (to by position maximize CSF flow) and possibly more aggressive operative decompressive intervention to diminish cervical obstruction.

Non-surgical treatment of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome

Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), a pervasive disease, is closely associated with complications such as cardiovascular diseases, neurocognitive diseases, and metabolic syndromes. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the standard treatment for OSAS, with low compliance due to multifarious factors. The two other modes of ventilation, bi-level positive airway pressure (BPAP) and autotitrating positive airway pressure (APAP), which were developed from CPAP, are slightly different from CPAP in specific groups, as well as the corresponding treatment effect and compliance. The compliance of traditional positional therapy is not high, but with the emergence of the neck-based position treatment device, its compliance and indications have changed. Although CPAP is superior to mandibular advancement device (MAD) in improving AHI, MAD seems to be comparable to CPAP in improving other indicators. Corticosteroids and leukotriene receptor antagonists are effective treatments for mild OSAS children. Whether corticosteroids can be used in other OSAS groups and their adjunctive functions to CPAP remains unclear. The combination of these two kinds of drugs appears to be more effective than single drug. Researches on transcutaneous electrical stimulation are still not enough. Its effectiveness and stimulation settings still need further study. This review summarized the various OSAS non-surgical treatments from indications, treatment outcomes, compliance, adverse reactions, and recent progress.

Effects of Antecedent Manipulations and Social Reinforcement to Increase Lateral Positioning in a Premature Infant with Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Recent research suggests supine positioning for sleeping infants is the safest position to prevent breathing related difficulties; however doing so can significantly increase obstruction in apneic infants resulting in decreased sleep quality. We implemented a multi-component treatment package compromised of antecedent interventions and parent-mediated social reinforcement to increase lateral positioning in a premature infant with obstructive sleep apnea. Results indicate that the intervention increased lateral positioning in the participant by over 80 % in the final phase of the study, indicating efficacy of the intervention. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.