Explore the vast range of titles available.

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and mandibular advancement device (MAD) therapy are commonly used to treat obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Differences in efficacy and compliance of these treatments are likely to influence improvements in health outcomes. To compare health effects after 1 month of optimal CPAP and MAD therapy in OSA. In this randomized crossover trial, we compared the effects of 1 month each of CPAP and MAD treatment on cardiovascular and neurobehavioral outcomes. Cardiovascular (24-h blood pressure, arterial stiffness), neurobehavioral (subjective sleepiness, driving simulator performance), and quality of life (Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, Short Form-36) were compared between treatments. Our primary outcome was 24-hour mean arterial pressure. A total of 126 patients with moderate-severe OSA (apnea hypopnea index [AHI], 25.6 [SD 12.3]) were randomly assigned to a treatment order and 108 completed the trial with both devices. CPAP was more efficacious than MAD in reducing AHI (CPAP AHI, 4.5 ± 6.6/h; MAD AHI, 11.1 ± 12.1/h; P < 0.01) but reported compliance was higher on MAD (MAD, 6.50 ± 1.3 h per night vs. CPAP, 5.20 ± 2 h per night; P < 0.00001). The 24-hour mean arterial pressure was not inferior on treatment with MAD compared with CPAP (CPAP-MAD difference, 0.2 mm Hg [95% confidence interval, -0.7 to 1.1]); however, overall, neither treatment improved blood pressure. In contrast, sleepiness, driving simulator performance, and disease-specific quality of life improved on both treatments by similar amounts, although MAD was superior to CPAP for improving four general quality-of-life domains. Important health outcomes were similar after 1 month of optimal MAD and CPAP treatment in patients with moderate-severe OSA. The results may be explained by greater efficacy of CPAP being offset by inferior compliance relative to MAD, resulting in similar effectiveness. Clinical trial registered with https://www.anzctr.org.au (ACTRN 12607000289415).

Purpose Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) is currently the gold standard for respiratory support for moderate to severe acute viral bronchiolitis (AVB). Although oxygen delivery via high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is increasingly used, evidence of its efficacy and safety is lacking in infants. Methods A randomized controlled trial was performed in five pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) to compare 7 cmH 2 O nCPAP with 2 L/kg/min oxygen therapy administered with HFNC in infants up to 6 months old with moderate to severe AVB. The primary endpoint was the percentage of failure within 24 h of randomization using prespecified criteria. To satisfy noninferiority, the failure rate of HFNC had to lie within 15% of the failure rate of nCPAP. Secondary outcomes included success rate after crossover, intubation rate, length of stay, and serious adverse events. Results From November 2014 to March 2015, 142 infants were included and equally distributed into groups. The risk difference of −19% (95% CI −35 to −3%) did not allow the conclusion of HFNC noninferiority ( p  = 0.707). Superiority analysis suggested a relative risk of success 1.63 (95% CI 1.02–2.63) higher with nCPAP. The success rate with the alternative respiratory support, intubation rate, durations of noninvasive and invasive ventilation, skin lesions, and length of PICU stay were comparable between groups. No patient had air leak syndrome or died. Conclusion In young infants with moderate to severe AVB, initial management with HFNC did not have a failure rate similar to that of nCPAP. This clinical trial was recorded in the National Library of Medicine registry (NCT 02457013).

Purpose Experimental animal models of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have shown that the updated airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) methodologies may significantly improve oxygenation, maximize lung recruitment, and attenuate lung injury, without circulatory depression. This led us to hypothesize that early application of APRV in patients with ARDS would allow pulmonary function to recover faster and would reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation as compared with low tidal volume lung protective ventilation (LTV). Methods A total of 138 patients with ARDS who received mechanical ventilation for <48 h between May 2015 to October 2016 while in the critical care medicine unit (ICU) of the West China Hospital of Sichuan University were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive APRV ( n  = 71) or LTV ( n  = 67). The settings for APRV were: high airway pressure (P high ) set at the last plateau airway pressure (P plat ), not to exceed 30 cmH 2 O) and low airway pressure ( P low ) set at 5 cmH 2 O; the release phase (T low ) setting adjusted to terminate the peak expiratory flow rate to ≥ 50%; release frequency of 10–14 cycles/min. The settings for LTV were: target tidal volume of 6 mL/kg of predicted body weight; P plat not exceeding 30 cmH 2 O; positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) guided by the PEEP–FiO 2 table according to the ARDSnet protocol. The primary outcome was the number of days without mechanical ventilation from enrollment to day 28. The secondary endpoints included oxygenation, P plat , respiratory system compliance, and patient outcomes. Results Compared with the LTV group, patients in the APRV group had a higher median number of ventilator-free days {19 [interquartile range (IQR) 8–22] vs. 2 (IQR 0–15); P  < 0.001}. This finding was independent of the coexisting differences in chronic disease. The APRV group had a shorter stay in the ICU ( P  = 0.003). The ICU mortality rate was 19.7% in the APRV group versus 34.3% in the LTV group ( P  = 0.053) and was associated with better oxygenation and respiratory system compliance, lower P plat , and less sedation requirement during the first week following enrollment ( P  < 0.05, repeated-measures analysis of variance). Conclusions Compared with LTV, early application of APRV in patients with ARDS improved oxygenation and respiratory system compliance, decreased P plat and reduced the duration of both mechanical ventilation and ICU stay.

Automated telemedicine interventions could potentially improve adherence to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. Examining the effects of telemedicine-delivered obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) education and CPAP telemonitoring with automated patient feedback messaging on CPAP adherence. This four-arm, randomized, factorial design clinical trial enrolled 1,455 patients (51.0% women; age, 49.1 ± 12.5 yr [mean ± SD]) referred for suspected OSA. Nine hundred and fifty-six underwent home sleep apnea testing, and 556 were prescribed CPAP. Two telemedicine interventions were implemented: 1) web-based OSA education (Tel-Ed) and 2) CPAP telemonitoring with automated patient feedback (Tel-TM). Patients were randomized to 1) usual care, 2) Tel-Ed added, 3) Tel-TM added, or 4) Tel-Ed and Tel-TM added (Tel-both). The primary endpoint was 90-day CPAP usage. Secondary endpoints included attendance to OSA evaluation, and change in Epworth Sleepiness Scale score. CPAP average daily use at 90 days was 3.8 ± 2.5, 4.0 ± 2.4, 4.4 ± 2.2, and 4.8 ± 2.3 hours in usual care, Tel-Ed, Tel-TM, and Tel-both groups. Usage was significantly higher in the Tel-TM and Tel-both groups versus usual care (P = 0.0002 for both) but not for Tel-Ed (P = 0.10). Medicare adherence rates were 53.5, 61.0, 65.6, and 73.2% in usual care, Tel-Ed, Tel-TM, and Tel-both groups (Tel-both vs. usual care, P = 0.001; Tel-TM vs. usual care, P = 0.003; Tel-Ed vs. usual care, P = 0.07), respectively. Telemedicine education improved clinic attendance compared with no telemedicine education (show rate, 68.5 vs. 62.7%; P = 0.02). The use of CPAP telemonitoring with automated feedback messaging improved 90-day adherence in patients with OSA. Telemedicine-based education did not significantly improve CPAP adherence but did increase clinic attendance for OSA evaluation. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02279901).

Abstract Study Objectives Insomnia and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) commonly co-occur which makes OSA difficult to treat with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). We conducted a randomized controlled trial in participants with OSA and co-occurring insomnia to test the hypothesis that initial treatment with cognitive and behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-i), versus treatment as usual (TAU) would improve insomnia symptoms and increase subsequent acceptance and use of CPAP. Methods One hundred and forty-five participants with OSA (apnea-hypopnea index ≥ 15) and comorbid insomnia were randomized to either four sessions of CBT-i, or TAU, before commencing CPAP therapy until 6 months post-randomization. Primary between-group outcomes included objective average CPAP adherence and changes in objective sleep efficiency by 6 months. Secondary between-group outcomes included rates of immediate CPAP acceptance/rejection, and changes in; sleep parameters, insomnia severity, and daytime impairments by 6 months. Results Compared to TAU, participants in the CBT-i group had 61 min greater average nightly adherence to CPAP (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9 to 113; p = 0.023, d = 0.38) and higher initial CPAP treatment acceptance (99% vs. 89%; p = 0.034). The CBT-i group showed greater improvement of global insomnia severity, and dysfunctional sleep-related cognitions by 6 months (both: p < 0.001), and greater improvement in sleep impairment measures immediately following CBT-i. There were no between-group differences in sleep outcomes, or daytime impairments by 6 months. Conclusions In OSA participants with comorbid insomnia, CBT-i prior to initiating CPAP treatment improves CPAP use and insomnia symptoms compared to commencing CPAP without CBT-i. OSA patients should be evaluated for co-occurring insomnia and considered for CBT-i before commencing CPAP therapy. Clinical Trial Treating comorbid insomnia with obstructive sleep apnea (COMSIA) study: A new treatment strategy for patients with combined insomnia and sleep apnea, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=365184 Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12613001178730. Universal Trial Number: U1111-1149-4230.

Background High flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) are two widely used modes of non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care units. The FIRST-ABC randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with CPAP in two distinct critical care populations: acutely ill children (‘step-up’ RCT) and extubated children (‘step-down’ RCT). Clinical effectiveness findings (time to liberation from all forms of respiratory support) showed that HFNC was non-inferior to CPAP in the step-up RCT, but failed to meet non-inferiority criteria in the step-down RCT. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of HFNC versus CPAP. Methods All-cause mortality, health-related Quality of Life (HrQoL), and costs up to six months were reported using FIRST-ABC RCTs data. HrQoL was measured with the age-appropriate Paediatric Quality of Life Generic Core Scales questionnaire and mapped onto the Child Health Utility 9D index score at six months. Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were estimated by combining HrQoL with mortality. Costs at six months were calculated by measuring and valuing healthcare resources used in paediatric critical care units, general medical wards and wider health service. The cost-effectiveness analysis used regression methods to report the cost-effectiveness of HFNC versus CPAP at six months and summarised the uncertainties around the incremental cost-effectiveness results. Results In both RCTs, the incremental QALYs at six months were similar between the randomised groups. The estimated incremental cost at six months was − £4565 (95% CI − £11,499 to £2368) and − £5702 (95% CI − £11,328 to − £75) for step-down and step-up RCT, respectively. The incremental net benefits of HFNC versus CPAP in step-down RCT and step-up RCT were £4388 (95% CI − £2551 to £11,327) and £5628 (95% CI − £8 to £11,264) respectively. The cost-effectiveness results were surrounded by considerable uncertainties. The results were similar across most pre-specified subgroups, and the base case results were robust to alternative assumptions. Conclusions HFNC compared to CPAP as non-invasive respiratory support for critically-ill children in paediatric critical care units reduces mean costs and is relatively cost-effective overall and for key subgroups, although there is considerable statistical uncertainty surrounding this result.

With increasing use of nCPAP, the safety and comfort associated with nCPAP have come into the forefront. The reported incidence of nasal injuries associated with the use of nCPAP is 20% to 60%. A recent meta-analysis concluded that the use of nasal masks significantly decreases CPAP failure and the incidence of moderate to severe nasal injury and stress the need for a well powered RCT to confirm their findings. In this Open label, 3 arms, sequential, stratified randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the incidence and severity of nasal injury at removal of nCPAP when using two different nasal interfaces and in three groups (i.e. rotation group, mask continue group, prong continue group). Preterm infants with gestation ≤ 30 weeks and respiratory distress within the first 6 hours of birth and in need of CPAP were eligible for the study. Among the 175 newborns included in the study, incidence of nasal injury in mask continue group [n = 19/57 (33.3%)] was significantly less as compared to prong continue group [n = 55/60 (91.6%)] and rotation group [33/ 58 (56.9%), p value <0.0001]. Median maximum nasal injury score was significantly less in Mask continue group as compared to Prong continue group and Rotation group [Injury Score 0 (IQR 0-1) vs. Injury Score 3 (IQR 2-5) vs. Injury Score 1 (IQR 0-2), p value = <0.0001] respectively. The proportion of infants failing nCPAP was similar across the three groups. nCPAP with nasal masks significantly reduces nasal injury in comparison with nasal prongs or rotation of nasal prongs and nasal masks. However, the type of interface did not affect the nCPAP failure rates.

Poor adherence to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) commonly affects therapeutic response in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). We aimed to determine predictors of adherence to CPAP among participants of the Sleep Apnea and cardioVascular Endpoints (SAVE) trial. SAVE was an international, randomized, open trial of CPAP plus usual care versus usual care (UC) alone in participants (45-75 years) with co-occurring moderate-to-severe OSA (≥12 episodes/h of ≥4% oxygen desaturation) and established cardiovascular (CV) disease. Baseline sociodemographic, health and lifestyle factors, OSA symptoms, and 1-month change in daytime sleepiness, as well as CPAP side effects and adherence (during sham screening, titration week, and in the first month), were entered in univariate linear regression analyses to identify predictors of CPAP adherence at 24 months. Variables with p <0.2 were assessed for inclusion in a multivariate linear mixed model with country, age, and sex included a priori and site as a random effect. Significant univariate predictors of adherence at 24 months in 1,121 participants included: early adherence measures, improvement in daytime sleepiness at 1 month, fixed CPAP pressure, some measures of OSA severity, cardiovascular disease history, breathing pauses, and very loud snoring. While observed adherence varied between countries, adherence during sham screening, initial titration, and the first month of treatment retained independent predictive value in the multivariate model along with fixed CPAP pressure and very loud snoring. Early CPAP adherence had the greatest predictive value for identifying those at highest risk of non-adherence to long-term CPAP therapy. SAVE is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00738179).

Home respiratory polygraphy may be a simpler alternative to in-laboratory polysomnography for the management of more symptomatic patients with obstructive sleep apnea, but its effectiveness has not been evaluated across a broad clinical spectrum. To compare the long-term effectiveness (6 mo) of home respiratory polygraphy and polysomnography management protocols in patients with intermediate-to-high sleep apnea suspicion (most patients requiring a sleep study). A multicentric, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial with two open parallel arms and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12 tertiary hospitals in Spain. Sequentially screened patients with sleep apnea suspicion were randomized to respiratory polygraphy or polysomnography protocols. Moreover, both arms received standardized therapeutic decision-making, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment or a healthy habit assessment, auto-CPAP titration (for CPAP indication), health-related quality-of-life questionnaires, 24-hour blood pressure monitoring, and polysomnography at the end of follow-up. The main outcome was the Epworth Sleepiness Scale measurement. The noninferiority criterion was -2 points on the Epworth scale. In total, 430 patients were randomized. The respiratory polygraphy protocol was noninferior to the polysomnography protocol based on the Epworth scale. Quality of life, blood pressure, and polysomnography were similar between protocols. Respiratory polygraphy was the most cost-effective protocol, with a lower per-patient cost of 416.7€. Home respiratory polygraphy management is similarly effective to polysomnography, with a substantially lower cost. Therefore, polysomnography is not necessary for most patients with suspected sleep apnea. This finding could change established clinical practice, with a clear economic benefit. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01752556).

In developing countries, mortality in children with very severe pneumonia is high, even with the provision of appropriate antibiotics, standard oxygen therapy, and other supportive care. We assessed whether oxygen therapy delivered by bubble continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) improved outcomes compared with standard low-flow and high-flow oxygen therapies. This open, randomised, controlled trial took place in Dhaka Hospital of the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh. We randomly assigned children younger than 5 years with severe pneumonia and hypoxaemia to receive oxygen therapy by either bubble CPAP (5 L/min starting at a CPAP level of 5 cm H2O), standard low-flow nasal cannula (2 L/min), or high-flow nasal cannula (2 L/kg per min up to the maximum of 12 L/min). Randomisation was done with use of the permuted block methods (block size of 15 patients) and Fisher and Yates tables of random permutations. The primary outcome was treatment failure (ie, clinical failure, intubation and mechanical ventilation, death, or termination of hospital stay against medical advice) after more than 1 h of treatment. Primary and safety analyses were by intention to treat. We did two interim analyses and stopped the trial after the second interim analysis on Aug 3, 2013, as directed by the data safety and monitoring board. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01396759. Between Aug 4, 2011, and July 17, 2013, 225 eligible children were recruited. We randomly allocated 79 (35%) children to receive oxygen therapy by bubble CPAP, 67 (30%) to low-flow oxygen therapy, and 79 (35%) to high-flow oxygen therapy. Treatment failed for 31 (14%) children, of whom five (6%) had received bubble CPAP, 16 (24%) had received low-flow oxygen therapy, and ten (13%) had received high-flow oxygen therapy. Significantly fewer children in the bubble CPAP group had treatment failure than in the low-flow oxygen therapy group (relative risk [RR] 0·27, 99·7% CI 0·07–0·99; p=0·0026). No difference in treatment failure was noted between patients in the bubble CPAP and those in the high-flow oxygen therapy group (RR 0·50, 99·7% 0·11–2·29; p=0·175). 23 (10%) children died. Three (4%) children died in the bubble CPAP group, ten (15%) children died in the low-flow oxygen therapy group, and ten (13%) children died in the high-flow oxygen therapy group. Children who received oxygen by bubble CPAP had significantly lower rates of death than the children who received oxygen by low-flow oxygen therapy (RR 0·25, 95% CI 0·07–0·89; p=0·022). Oxygen therapy delivered by bubble CPAP improved outcomes in Bangladeshi children with very severe pneumonia and hypoxaemia compared with standard low-flow oxygen therapy. Use of bubble CPAP oxygen therapy could have a large effect in hospitals in developing countries where the only respiratory support for severe childhood pneumonia and hypoxaemia is low-flow oxygen therapy. The trial was stopped early because of higher mortality in the low-flow oxygen group than in the bubble CPAP group, and we acknowledge that the early cessation of the trial reduces the certainty of the findings. Further research is needed to test the feasibility of scaling up bubble CPAP in district hospitals and to improve bubble CPAP delivery technology. International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh, and Centre for International Child Health, University of Melbourne.