Explore the vast range of titles available.

Our goal was to revise the literature about external nasal dilators (ENDs) as to their definition, history, and current uses. We reviewed journals in the PubMed and MEDLINE databases. The current uses hereby presented and discussed are physical exercise, nasal congestion and sleep, snoring, pregnancy, cancer, and healthy individuals. Numerous studies have shown that ENDs increase the cross-sectional area of the nasal valve, reducing nasal resistance and transnasal inspiratory pressure and stabilizing the lateral nasal vestibule, avoiding its collapse during final inspiration. These effects also facilitate breathing and are beneficial to patients with nasal obstruction. Furthermore, END use is simple, noninvasive, painless, affordable, and bears minimum risk to the user. Most studies have limited sample size and are mainly focused on physical exercise. In conclusion, ENDs seem useful, so further studies involving potential effects on the performance of physical tests and improvements in sleep quality are necessary, especially in children and teenagers.

We studied the affect of an adhesive external nasal dilator strip (ENDS) on the inspiratory nasal airflow. A prospective study was performed. Twenty-two healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study. All volunteers analyzed the inspiratory nasal sound samples before and while wearing a commercially available ENDS. This nasal sound analysis includes the spectral analysis and average sound intensities in low frequency (Lf), medium frequency (Mf), and high frequency (Hf). In the sound analyses, an increase was found in sound intensity at Hf when the nasal strips were not worn whereas a decrease was found in sound intensity at Hf when the nasal strips were on. Changes in the nasal geometry of the anterior part of the nose by wearing nasal strips affects the pattern of nasal airflow and transforms it into a laminar pattern.

Background Numerous studies have shown that the external nasal dilator (END) increases the cross sectional area of the nasal valve, thereby reducing nasal resistance, transnasal inspiratory pressure, stabilizing the lateral nasal vestibule, and preventing its collapse during final inhalation. Objectives Our objective was to carry out a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the effects of the END during physical exercise. Methods After selecting articles in the PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases, 624 studies were identified. However, after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 19 articles were considered eligible for review. Results Those studies included in the meta-analysis, the maximal oxygen uptake (VO 2 max.) outcome was assessed in 168 participants in which no statistically significant difference was found, MD (95% CI) = 0.86 [− 0.43, 2.15], p  = 0.19, and I 2  = 0%. The heart rate (HR) outcome was assessed in 138 participants in which no statistically significant difference was found, MD (95% CI) = 0.02 [− 3.19, 3.22], p  = 0.99, and I 2  = 0%. The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) outcome was assessed in 92 participants in which no statistically significant difference was found, MD (95% CI) =  − 0.12 [− 0.52, 0.28], p  = 0.56, and I 2  = 27%. Conclusions The external nasal dilator strip showed no improvement in VO 2 max., HR and RPE outcomes in healthy individuals during exercise.

Study Objectives: Women with sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) in pregnancy are at a greater risk of developing serious adverse perinatal outcomes. However, the pathogenesis of SDB in pregnancy is poorly understood. As nasal congestion is common in pregnancy, nasal obstruction may contribute to SDB in this population. This study aims to assess the impact of nasal dilator strips (NDS) on measures of SDB and their potential for use as a placebo condition. Methods: Pregnant women ≥ 18 years old, body mass index ≥ 27 kg/m 2 , and habitual snoring were enrolled. Participants completed 2 consecutive level III home sleep apnea tests and used NDS during the second test. Objective measures including respiratory event index and pulse transit time drop index, a measure of increased arterial stiffness, were compared across tests. Subjective assessments of participants’ perceived impact of NDS use was also obtained. Results: 54 women, 59% White, 60% in the third trimester were enrolled. Median time between the 2 studies was 1 day (interquartile range [IQR] 4). There was no significant change between the night without NDS use and the night with NDS use in respiratory event index (5.30 [IQR 6.20] vs 4.80 [IQR 6.78], P  = .8) or pulse transit time drop index (6.8 [IQR 13.3] vs 6.6 [IQR 15.8], P  = .360). Subjective measures of sleep did not differ between the 2 nights. Conclusions: Despite the high prevalence of pregnancy-associated rhinitis, NDS do not have a significant impact on measures of SDB. Results from this study support the use of NDS as an appropriate placebo in prenatal clinical trials. Citation: Maxwell M, Sanapo L, Monteiro K, et al. Impact of nasal dilator strips on measures of sleep-disordered breathing in pregnancy. J Clin Sleep Med . 2022;18(2):477–483.

Nasal obstruction requires close attention, as it is a risk factor for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). This study evaluated airflow rates of our newly designed nasal breathing stent (NBS) compared with those of existing nasal dilators in 10 adult men. We hypothesized that the NBS would expand the nasal passage more than the other nasal dilators by means of airflow measurements. We compared airflow measurements between the NBS and three existing appliances and no appliance. Velocity measurements were recorded by analyzing 499 videographic images when each appliance was placed next to a steam generator at 0, 5, and 10 mm from the outlet port for airflow visualization. The peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) rate was measured using an inspiratory flow meter. The NBS resulted in significantly higher airflow velocity measurements at all distances from the outlet port and a higher PNIF rate than the other appliances. Thus, the NBS offers a significantly decreased resistance to air movement compared with other appliances. Future in-depth investigations are required to demonstrate the use of NBS as a nasal dilator in conjunction with continuous positive airway pressure/oral appliance treatments in patients with OSA.

Study Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of nasal dilator strip (NDS) as a placebo intervention compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment in patients with severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Methods: Patients were treated with both NDS and nasal CPAP. The sequence was randomized and interposed by 15 days of washout. Polysomnography was performed at baseline and on the first night of intervention with NDS and CPAP (titration). The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) were completed at baseline and at the end of both interventions. A questionnaire on the comfort and satisfaction (0 = no to 10 = total) was completed at the end of each intervention. Results: Twenty-six patients with OSA were evaluated (19 male; age 46.3 ± 9.3 y; body mass index 33.2 ± 5.1 kg/m 2 ; ESS 15.8 ± 4.1; apnea-hypopnea index 60.7 ± 25.2). Adherence was high in both NDS (98%) and CPAP interventions (94%; 5.8 ± 1.7 h/night). In contrast to the baseline values, NDS intervention had no significant effect on all polysomnographic parameters, but NDS improved somnolence (ESS 13.0 ± 5.4, p = 0.001) and depressive symptoms (BDI 7.7 ± 6.9, p = 0.005). Reported satisfaction was significantly higher for CPAP than for NDS (sleep quality 9.2 ± 0.8 vs. 6.1 ± 2.1; wake up at morning: 8.6 ± 1.2 vs. 6.0 ± 2.2; daily activities: 8.9 ± 1.4 vs. 5.8 ± 1.5; quality of life: 8.3 ± 2.1 vs. 3.8 ± 3.5, p < 0.001), but similar low levels of difficulty for both interventions were observed (1.3 ± 2.2 vs. 0.3 ± 1.3, p = 0.098). Conclusions: Our data indicate that NDS is an attractive placebo intervention for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of CPAP in sleepy patients with OSA. Citation: Yagihara F, Lorenzi-Filho G, Santos-Silva R. Nasal dilator strip is an effective placebo intervention for severe obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Sleep Med . 2017;13(2):215–221.

Background This exploratory study investigated effects of a new asymmetric butterfly-shaped prototype nasal dilator strip and the currently marketed clear Breathe Right Nasal Strip (BRNS) on subjective measures of nasal congestion and sleep quality. Methods In this randomized, double-blind study, subjects with chronic nasal congestion and sleep difficulties were assigned a BRNS clear strip, an asymmetric butterfly prototype, or an asymmetric butterfly placebo strip without springs, to use nightly for 2 weeks. The main outcomes included change from baseline to days 7 and 14 on the Pittsburgh Insomnia Rating Scale (PIRS), Nocturnal Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (NRQLQ), and Congestion Quantifier Seven-Item Test (CQ7). Results The intent-to-treat population included 59 subjects. The butterfly and BRNS strips showed significant ( P  < 0.05) improvement versus placebo on PIRS satisfaction with sleep at day 7 [least square (LS) mean changes: − 0.7, − 0.6, and − 0.2, respectively], and the butterfly strip also showed significant improvement from baseline on this outcome versus placebo at day 14 (− 1.0 vs − 0.5). On the NRQLQ, both the butterfly prototype and BRNS clear were more effective than placebo in improving symptoms on waking at day 7 (LS mean changes: − 7.9, − 7.2, and − 4.1, respectively); the BRNS clear was significantly more effective than placebo in improving sleep problems at day 7 (− 7.4 vs − 4.2). There were no between-treatment differences on the CQ7. All strips were well tolerated. Conclusions The asymmetric butterfly prototype and BRNS clear strip significantly improved some subjective measures of nasal congestion and sleep compared with placebo in subjects with nasal congestion and sleep difficulties. Trial registration This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01122849)

Although continuous positive airway pressure, oral appliances and surgical modifications of the airway are considered as part of the routine management of patients with obstructive sleep apnea, many new and unconventional therapies exist. Many of the trials using these new alternatives have been limited by insufficient data, poor trial design, small sample size, unclear inclusion criteria, lack of randomization, and lack of blinding, and on occasion are biased by retrospective design. Bariatric surgery, positional therapy, auto-titrating positive airway pressure, serotonin agents, wake promoting agents, genioglossus stimulation surgery, supplemental oxygen, nasal dilators, nasal expiratory resistor devices and oropharyngeal exercises will be reviewed. As obstructive sleep apnea impacts the individual and society at large, further research is needed to explore new therapeutic treatment options for obstructive sleep apnea. Therapeutic trials for obstructive sleep apnea must be of rigorous design to prove clinical effectiveness while taking into account both patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness.

Objective. To systematically review the international literature for studies evaluating internal (NoZovent) and external (Breathe Right Strips) nasal dilators as treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Study Design. Systematic review with meta -analysis. Methods. Four databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, were searched through September 29, 2016. Results. One-hundred twelve studies were screened, fifty-eight studies were reviewed, and fourteen studies met criteria. In 147 patients, the apnea -hypopnea index (AHI) was reported, and there was an improvement from a mean [+ or -] standard deviation (M [+ or -] SD) of 28.7[+ or -]24.0 to 27.4[+ or -]23.3 events/hr, p value 0.64. There was no significant change in AHI, lowest oxygen saturation, or snoring index in OSA patients when using nasal dilators. However, a subanalysis demonstrated a slight reduction in apnea index (AI) with internal nasal dilators (decrease by 4.87 events/hr) versus minimal change for external nasal dilators (increase by 0.64 events/hr). Conclusion. Although nasal dilators have demonstrated improved nasal breathing, they have not shown improvement in obstructive sleep apnea outcomes, with the exception of mild improvement in apnea index when internal nasal dilators were used.