Mask interfaces and devices for home noninvasive ventilation in children

Home noninvasive ventilation (NIV), including continuous (CPAP) and bilevel (BPAP) positive airway pressure, is increasingly used in children worldwide. In this narrative review, we present a comprehensive summary of the equipment available for home NIV in pediatrics, excluding neonates. NIV may be challenging in young children, as the majority of the equipment has been developed for adults. Regarding the interfaces, only a few masks have been specifically developed for young children in recent years, while older children may benefit from a large variety of interfaces. Even though much progress has been made, skin injuries are still present, and need to be managed rapidly. Several studies addressed the management of the side effects, but recent studies are lacking regarding orofacial anomalies. No recent study reported the available interfaces for young children and the strategies for an optimal mask fit. Regarding the devices, an adapted NIV device to pediatrics that allows an adequate patient's breathing detection should guarantee optimal ventilatory efficiency and monitoring of NIV. A close follow-up and regular monitoring should be mandatory to rule out the potential issues, optimize NIV therapy and ascertain the efficacy of NIV. However, studies are lacking to guide the choice of devices in young children and the optimal management of home NIV in pediatrics. We summarized the characteristics of the different interfaces available for young children and the limitations of NIV devices. We finally addressed potential areas for future research on long-term home NIV in children.

[Telemonitoring in continuous positive airway pressure-treated patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome: An algorithm proposal]

Most of the continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices currently in use allow telemonitoring of observance, leaks and the apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI). La Société française de recherche et de médecine du sommeil (SFRMS) and La Société de pneumologie de langue française (SPLF) workgroup offer to CPAP prescribers and to home care providers a scientific document which has the following purposes: to underline the relevance of the telemonitoring of leaks and the AHI, to define alert thresholds, to describe the principal mechanisms generating excessive leaks and high AHI, and to propose a diagnostic algorithm.

Clinical side effects of continuous positive airway pressure in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea

CPAP is considered the gold standard treatment in OSA and is highly efficacious in controlling OSA symptoms. However, treatment effectiveness is limited because of many factors including low adherence due to side effects. This review highlights the range of side effects associated with CPAP therapy in patients with OSA. This information is important for the initiation of patients onto CPAP as well as their continued care while on treatment, given the increase in non-medically supervised CPAP care models in use globally.

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.

OSA treatment with CPAP: Randomized crossover study comparing tolerance and efficacy with and without humidification by ThermoSmart

OBJECTIVES

Adherence to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) remains an issue, as adverse effects (AE) such as rhinitis, dry/congested nose, dry mouth or throat are commonly experienced. The aim of the study was to compare CPAP efficacy and tolerance in severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients with or without (w/o) heated humidification using the ThermoSmart system.

METHODS

Multicenter RCT study in which CPAP-naive patients with severe OSA and meeting one or more of the following criteria: >65 years, using >1 drying medication, previous nasal symptoms or nasal surgery, were included. Patients were randomized to CPAP w/o heated humidification for 1 month and then crossed-over to the other treatment arm for another month. Naso-pharyngeal symptoms, Quality of life (FOSQ-10), sleepiness (ESS) and CPAP compliance and efficacy data were collected.

RESULTS

Forty patients were enrolled: age 62 ± 9 years, diagnostic AHI 46.7 ± 15.3/hour. About 70% were using >1 drying medication, mainly antihypertensives. Both treatment modalities were found to normalize AHI and decrease sleepiness with no differences between 2 modes, compliance (4.63 ± 0.39 vs 4.70 ± 0.36 h/night) or leaks (32.4 ± 2.0 versus 31.1 ± 1.7l/min). With heated humidification, there was a significant decrease in nasal symptoms such as dry/congested nose. At the study end, 26 patients preferred ThermoSmart ON, 3 did not have preference and 11 preferred ThermoSmart OFF.

CONCLUSION

ThermoSmart helps to decrease nose and throat discomfort because of CPAP therapy, these effects did not translate to better compliance but patients had a preference for ThermoSmart.

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.