[Expiratory pressure reduction (C-Flex Method) versus fix CPAP in the therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea]

Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Treatment with Positive Airway Pressure

As in other adults, continuous positive airway pressure treatment for obstructive sleep apnea should be the mainstay of treatment. Benefits include improvements in sleepiness and quality of life, as well as improvements in hypertension control, arrhythmias, cardiovascular risk, and mortality. This article discusses issues in prescribing this treatment, including those related specifically to elderly individuals.

Pressure modification or humidification for improving usage of continuous positive airway pressure machines in adults with obstructive sleep apnoea

BACKGROUND

Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is the repetitive closure of the upper airway during sleep. This results in disturbed sleep and excessive daytime sleepiness. It is a risk factor for long-term cardiovascular morbidity. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines can be applied during sleep. They deliver air pressure by a nasal or oronasal mask to prevent the airway from closing, reducing sleep disturbance and improving sleep quality. Some people find them difficult to tolerate because of high pressure levels and other symptoms such as a dry mouth. Switching to machines that vary the level of air pressure required to reduce sleep disturbance could increase comfort and promote more regular use. Humidification devices humidify the air that is delivered to the upper airway through the CPAP circuit. Humidification may reduce dryness of the throat and mouth and thus improve CPAP tolerability. This updated Cochrane Review looks at modifying the delivery of positive pressure and humidification on machine usage and other clinical outcomes in OSA.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of positive pressure modification or humidification on increasing CPAP machine usage in adults with OSA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Airways Specialised Register and clinical trials registries on 15 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised parallel group or cross-over trials in adults with OSA. We included studies that compared automatically adjusting CPAP (auto-CPAP), bilevel positive airway pressure (bi-PAP), CPAP with expiratory pressure relief (CPAPexp), heated humidification plus fixed CPAP, automatically adjusting CPAP with expiratory pressure relief, Bi-PAP with expiratory pressure relief, auto bi-PAP and CPAPexp with wakefulness detection with fixed pressure setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE for the outcomes of machine usage, symptoms (measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS)), Apnoea Hypopnoea Index (AHI), quality of life measured by Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), blood pressure, withdrawals and adverse events (e.g. nasal blockage or mask intolerance). The main comparison of interest in the review is auto-CPAP versus fixed CPAP.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 64 studies (3922 participants, 75% male). The main comparison of auto-CPAP with fixed CPAP is based on 36 studies with 2135 participants from Europe, USA, Hong Kong and Australia. The majority of studies recruited participants who were recently diagnosed with OSA and had not used CPAP previously. They had excessive sleepiness (ESS: 13), severe sleep disturbance (AHI ranged from 22 to 59), and average body mass index (BMI) of 35 kg/m2. Interventions were delivered at home and the duration of most studies was 12 weeks or less. We judged that studies at high or unclear risk of bias likely influenced the effect of auto-CPAP on machine usage, symptoms, quality of life and tolerability, but not for other outcomes. Primary outcome Compared with average usage of about five hours per night with fixed CPAP, people probably use auto-CPAP for 13 minutes longer per night at about six weeks (mean difference (MD) 0.21 hours/night, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.31; 31 studies, 1452 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not have enough data to determine whether auto-CPAP increases the number of people who use machines for more than four hours per night compared with fixed CPAP (odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.81; 2 studies, 346 participants; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Auto-CPAP probably reduces daytime sleepiness compared with fixed CPAP at about six weeks by a small amount (MD -0.44 ESS units, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.16; 25 studies, 1285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AHI is slightly higher with auto-CPAP than with fixed CPAP (MD 0.48 events per hour, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.80; 26 studies, 1256 participants; high-certainty evidence), although it fell with both machine types from baseline values in the studies. Ten per cent of people in auto-CPAP and 11% in the fixed CPAP arms withdrew from the studies (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence). Auto-CPAP and fixed CPAP may have similar effects on quality of life, as measured by the FOSQ but more evidence is needed to be confident in this result (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.46; 3 studies, 352 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies (353 participants) provided data on clinic-measured blood pressure. Auto-CPAP may be slightly less effective at reducing diastolic blood pressure compared to fixed CPAP (MD 2.92 mmHg, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.77 mmHg; low-certainty evidence). The two modalities of CPAP probably do not differ in their effects on systolic blood pressure (MD 1.87 mmHg, 95% CI -1.08 to 4.82; moderate-certainty evidence). Nine studies (574 participants) provided information on adverse events such as nasal blockage, dry mouth, tolerance of treatment pressure and mask leak. They used different scales to capture these outcomes and due to variation in the direction and size of effect between the studies, the comparative effects on tolerability outcomes are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).  The evidence base for other interventions is smaller, and does not provide sufficient information to determine whether there are important differences between pressure modification strategies and fixed CPAP on machine usage outcomes, symptoms and quality of life. As with the evidence for the auto-CPAP, adverse events are measured disparately.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with moderate to severe sleep apnoea starting positive airway pressure therapy, auto-CPAP probably increases machine usage by about 13 minutes per night. The effects on daytime sleepiness scores with auto-CPAP are not clinically meaningful. AHI values are slightly lower with fixed CPAP. Use of validated quality of life instruments in the studies to date has been limited, although where they have been used the effect sizes have not exceeded proposed clinically important differences. The adoption of a standardised approach to measuring tolerability would help decision-makers to balance benefits with harms from the different treatment options available. The evidence available for other pressure modification strategies does not provide a reliable basis on which to draw firm conclusions. Future studies should look at the effects of pressure modification devices and humidification in people who have already used CPAP but are unable to persist with treatment.

Work of Breathing in Fixed and Pressure Relief Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (C-Flex™): A post hoc Analysis

BACKGROUND

Expiratory pressure relief continuous positive airway pressure (pressure relief CPAP; C-Flex™) causes increases in inspiratory duty cycle and shortening of expiratory time. It has been suggested that these changes are caused by an increase in work of breathing.

OBJECTIVES

We studied the effects of C-Flex on work of breathing and intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure as compared to fixed CPAP.

METHODS

Work of breathing was analyzed in 24 patients with obstructive sleep apnea during treatment with fixed CPAP and C-Flex with 3 different pressure relief settings in a randomized order during rapid-eye-movement (REM) and non-REM sleep. Work of breathing was assessed on a breath-by-breath basis using a piezoelectric esophageal pressure catheter and a pneumotachograph for measuring airflow.

RESULTS

We found there was no increase in inspiratory work of breathing observed using C-Flex compared to fixed CPAP. Instead, we found a linear decrease in inspiratory work of breathing with increasing pressure relief, with a mean difference of 1.22 J/min between CPAP and maximum pressure release (C-Flex 3; 90% of the value with nasal CPAP); however, the decrease was not statistically significant. The decrease in inspiratory work of breathing associated with C-Flex has a significant inverse correlation with BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

The C-Flex technology does not change work of breathing but shows a tendency towards a reduction of inspiratory work of breathing in patients with a lower BMI using higher C-Flex. The effect is probably caused by diminishing airway resistance generated by the positive end-expiratory pressure. Our findings may lead to additional fields of application of the C-Flex technology, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or muscular dystrophy.

Assessment of the impact on compliance of a new CPAP system in obstructive sleep apnea

Background

Despite the efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), compliance with therapy remains suboptimal. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of S9^TM increased compliance in established CPAP users.

Methods

Subjects with OSA (50) were recruited into the study. When subjects entered the study, 28 days of respective compliance data were downloaded from the patient's usual CPAP device. Subjects trialled the S9 CPAP for 28 days. Subjects then resumed use of their usual CPAP for 28 days. Compliance data from the patient's usual CPAP pre- and post-trialling S9 were compared with data from the S9 CPAP.

Results

Patients were significantly more compliant when using the S9 than their usual CPAP device both pre- and post-S9 based on average daily usage. CPAP pre-S9 = 6.58 ± 1.95 (mean hours ± SD), S9 = 7.08 ± 1.18 h and CPAP post-S9 = 6.71 ± 1.72 h. The difference between CPAP pre-S9 and S9 was 0.5 h (p = 0.003). The difference between S9 and CPAP post-S9 was 0.35 h (p = 0.01). There was no significant difference between CPAP pre-S9 and CPAP post-S9 (p = 0.34). Patients also completed questionnaires comparing the S9 system to their usual device. Subjective feedback showed a strong preference for the S9.

Conclusions

Participants were significantly more compliant when using the S9 than their usual CPAP device both pre- and post-S9 use.

Canadian Thoracic Society 2011 guideline update: diagnosis and treatment of sleep disordered breathing

The Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) published an executive summary of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep disordered breathing in 2006⁄2007. These guidelines were developed during several meetings by a group of experts with evidence grading based on committee consensus. These guidelines were well received and the majority of the recommendations remain unchanged. The CTS embarked on a more rigorous process for the 2011 guideline update, and addressed eight areas that were believed to be controversial or in which new data emerged. The CTS Sleep Disordered Breathing Committee posed specific questions for each area. The recommendations regarding maximum assessment wait times, portable monitoring, treatment of asymptomatic adult obstructive sleep apnea patients, treatment with conventional continuous positive airway pressure compared with automatic continuous positive airway pressure, and treatment of central sleep apnea syndrome in heart failure patients replace the recommendations in the 2006⁄2007 guidelines. The recommendations on bariatric surgery, complex sleep apnea and optimum positive airway pressure technologies are new topics, which were not covered in the 2006⁄2007 guidelines.

The supraglottic effect of a reduction in expiratory mask pressure during continuous positive airway pressure

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Patients with obstructive sleep apnea may have difficulty exhaling against positive pressure, hence limiting their acceptance of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). C-Flex is designed to improve comfort by reducing pressure in the mask during expiration proportionally to expiratory airflow (3 settings correspond to increasing pressure changes). When patients use CPAP, nasal resistance determines how much higher supraglottic pressure is than mask pressure. We hypothesized that increased nasal resistance results in increased expiratory supraglottic pressure swings that could be mitigated by the effects of C-Flex on mask pressure.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Sleep center.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventeen patients with obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome and a mechanical model of the upper airway.

INTERVENTIONS

In patients on fixed CPAP, CPAP with different C-Flex levels was applied multiple times during the night. In the model, 2 different respiratory patterns and resistances were tested.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Airflow, expiratory mask, and supraglottic pressures were measured on CPAP and on C-Flex. Swings in pressure during expiration were determined. On CPAP, higher nasal resistance produced greater expiratory pressure swings in the supraglottis in the patients and in the model, as expected. C-Flex 3 produced expiratory drops in mask pressure (range -0.03 to -2.49 cm H(2)O) but mitigated the expiratory pressure rise in the supraglottis only during a sinusoidal respiratory pattern in the model.

CONCLUSIONS

Expiratory changes in mask pressure induced by C-Flex did not uniformly transmit to the supraglottis in either patients with obstructive sleep apnea on CPAP or in a mechanical model of the upper airway with fixed resistance. Data suggest that the observed lack of expiratory drop in supraglottic pressure swings is related to dynamics of the C-Flex algorithm.

Positive airway pressure initiation: a randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of therapy mode and titration process on efficacy, adherence, and outcomes

STUDY OBJECTIVES

(1) To determine the efficacy of automatically adjusted positive airway pressure (APAP) with a comfort feature (A-Flex) at reducing apneas and hypopneas in participants with moderate to severe OSA. (2) To determine the relative difference between A-Flex, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and APAP-derived optimal pressure for CPAP (CPAP(APAP)) on adherence to treatment. (3) To determine the relative difference between APAP with A-Flex, CPAP, and CPAP(APAP) on long-term change in functional outcomes.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blinded, 3-arm, multicenter trial.

SETTING

University and Veterans Affairs medical centers.

PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS

168 participants were randomized, and 140 completed the 180-day study.

INTERVENTIONS

(1) A-Flex; (2) CPAP; (3) APAP for 14 days and then switched to CPAP at a fixed pressure.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Apnea-hypopnea indices, average and minimum oxygen saturation, time spent < 90% were significantly poorer for A-Flex vs. CPAP at the initiation of study treatment; with the exception of minimum oxygen saturation, these differences were absent at 180 days. A-Flex had lower average leak values at both 3 and 6 months. There were no significant differences between groups in major efficacy, adherence, and outcome (subjective sleepiness, objective vigilance, blood pressure, quality of life) measures. No differences between groups in attitudes toward use were observed at 3 or 6 months; participant ratings for CPAP were significantly higher than A-Flex on treatment satisfaction and benefit, but not different for sleep quality and mask comfort.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that A-Flex shows equivalency, but non-superiority (except for average leak values), in efficacy, adherence, and functional outcomes compared to CPAP after either 3 or 6 months.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY

Positive Pressure Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00636181.

Flexible pressure delivery modification of continuous positive airway pressure for obstructive sleep apnea does not improve compliance with therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the first-line therapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), but patient compliance is a major barrier to long-term effectiveness. Flexible pressure delivery of PAP reduces pressure during early exhalation with the aim of improving comfort and, therefore, compliance, leading to subsequent symptoms improvement.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic literature search of PubMed (January 1, 2000, to July 11, 2010) to identify all randomized trials comparing flexible and standard CPAP in adult patients with OSA with at least 1-week follow-up. Either we or the original trial investigators extracted means, SEs, and sample sizes for all relevant outcome measures. We then performed meta-analyses quantifying improvements in objective compliance and symptoms as measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT), and the Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT).

RESULTS

We found 10 relevant trials (599 patients). Meta-analysis of the seven trials where we could extract compliance data (514 patients) indicated that flexible pressure did not improve compliance compared with CPAP in either the parallel (0.16 h; 95% CI, -0.09-0.42; P = .21) or the crossover trials (0.20 h; 95% CI, -0.26-0.66; P = .39). Flexible pressure caused no improvement over CPAP in any secondary outcome (ESS, MWT, PVT, and residual OSA, all P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Flexible pressure modification neither significantly improves compliance with CPAP in patients with OSA nor significantly improves patient outcomes beyond the effects of CPAP. Unfortunately, we were unable to locate compliance data in the correct format for three out of the 10 suitable trials.

Randomized controlled trial comparing flexible and continuous positive airway pressure delivery: effects on compliance, objective and subjective sleepiness and vigilance

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) can be limited by suboptimal compliance. C-Flex technology (Philips Respironics, PA, USA) reduces pressure during expiration, aiming to improve comfort and therefore compliance. This may be of particular relevance to patients requiring high pressures. Many studies thus far have suffered from design limitations and small sample sizes. This study aimed to compare compliance with C-Flex and CPAP, as well as analyzing objective and subjective sleepiness and vigilance.

DESIGN

Three-month, double-blinded, parallel-arm randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

A university-based sleep laboratory.

PATIENTS

76 consecutive patients with severe OSA (mean +/- SD AHI 60.2 +/- 32.9 events/hour, ESS 13.6 +/- 4.5/24, BMI 35.6 +/- 7.8 kg/m2), without significant cardiac, respiratory, psychiatric, or sleep comorbidities.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to C-Flex (dip level 2) or CPAP.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Patients underwent titration with C-Flex/CPAP (mean pressure 11.6 cm H2O). Modified maintenance of wakefulness tests (mod-MWT), psychomotor vigilance tasks (PVT) and questionnaires were administered at baseline and after one and 3 months. Median compliance was 5.51 and 5.89 h/night in the C-Flex and CPAP groups respectively (P = 0.82). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of PVT reaction time, subjective sleepiness, sleep quality, health-related quality of life, or treatment comfort. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the change in mod-MWT sleep latency values.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe OSA both CPAP and C-Flex resulted in substantial improvements in sleepiness, vigilance, and quality of life. The use of C-Flex did not result in greater compliance, and neither treatment appeared superior.

Pressure modification for improving usage of continuous positive airway pressure machines in adults with obstructive sleep apnoea

BACKGROUND

Continuous Positive Airways Pressure (CPAP) is considered to be the cornerstone of therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). However, compliance with this treatment is frequently poor, which may lead to ongoing symptoms of sleep disruption, daytime sleepiness and poor waking cognitive function. Mechanical interventions which involve changing the way that positive pressure is delivered, and the addition of humidification, might improve compliance.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of pressure level modifications and additional humidification in increasing CPAP machine usage.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (September 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing interventions to improve compliance with CPAP usage. Control groups received fixed pressure CPAP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors assessed articles for inclusion in the review and extracted data. We made attempts to obtain additional unpublished data from the trialists.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-five studies met the inclusion criteria (1874 participants). Auto-CPAP (30 studies, 1136 participants): a statistically significant difference in machine usage of 0.21 hours/night (0.08 to 0.35) was observed in favour of auto-CPAP from cross-over studies. This difference is of questionable clinical significance. Pooled effect estimates from parallel group trials detected a similar sized difference for average nightly machine usage, but this was not statistically significant. Evidence from parallel group studies did not identify a statistically significant difference between pressure modes in Epworth Sleepiness Scores, but there was an overall reduction of 0.64 units with cross-over studies (-0.12 to -1.16) in favour of auto-CPAP. Parallel group studies did not identify a significant difference. More participants preferred auto-CPAP to fixed CPAP where this was measured. Bi-level PAP (six studies, 285 participants): no significant differences were observed in machine usage. One small study found no difference in preference. C-Flex (six studies, 318 participants): no significant difference was observed in machine usage. Humidification (three studies, 135 participants): there were conflicting findings between the studies. Two parallel group trials found no significant difference in machine usage, whereas a cross-over study found a significant difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Improvement in average machine use of auto-CPAP was superior in studies with a cross-over design; the point estimate in parallel group trials was similar, but did not reach statistical significance. It is uncertain how use of machines in study settings relates to 'real world' use. Where preference was measured participants preferred auto-CPAP to fixed pressure CPAP. Further studies are required to assess the evidence for Bi-PAP, C-Flex(TM) and humidification. The studies assembled were characterised by high machine usage in the control groups, and low withdrawal rates. Future studies need to consider the effects of treatment in participants with more mild disease, and those who struggle to accept therapy despite persistent symptoms.