The utility of various predictive equations in patients with severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea: a clinical practice viewpoint in settings with limited resources

Ahmed Gharib, Mai S. Elsheikh, Iman Galal
{"title":"The utility of various predictive equations in patients with severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea: a clinical practice viewpoint in settings with limited resources","authors":"Ahmed Gharib, Mai S. Elsheikh, Iman Galal","doi":"10.1186/s43168-024-00303-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) needed for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) can be determined after a manual titration study which is often expensive and time consuming. Hence, different predictive equations were suggested to simplify the treatment of OSA. The purpose of this work was to compare the CPAP identified with manual titration with that calculated using various equations in a cohort of patients with severe OSA. This work was conducted on patients diagnosed with severe OSA. Data collected included full medical history, demographic and anthropometric measures, polysomnography results, and the CPAP pressure obtained after manual titration which was further compared to 15 predictive equations retrieved from the literature. A total of 166 patients [137 (82.5%) males and 29 (17.5%) females] with severe OSA were recruited in the study. Their mean age was 55.91 ± 12.64, and their baseline diagnostic apnea hypopnea index was 71.75 ± 23.70. The mean CPAP manual titration pressure was 11.31 ± 2.9 cmH2O. Non-significant statistical difference was found (p > 0.05) when the mean titration pressure was calculated by Eqs. 2 (11.36 ± 2), 3 (11.55 ± 1.68), 10 (11.51 ± 2.29), 11 (11.14 ± 2.04), and 14 (11.71 ± 2.06), whereas the mean titration pressure calculated by Eqs. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15 differed significantly from the manual titration pressure (p < 0.05). Predictive equations suggested to calculate CPAP pressure, albeit simple and easy to apply, yielded variable results and should be investigated carefully before their use into clinical practice.","PeriodicalId":22426,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian Journal of Bronchology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian Journal of Bronchology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43168-024-00303-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) needed for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) can be determined after a manual titration study which is often expensive and time consuming. Hence, different predictive equations were suggested to simplify the treatment of OSA. The purpose of this work was to compare the CPAP identified with manual titration with that calculated using various equations in a cohort of patients with severe OSA. This work was conducted on patients diagnosed with severe OSA. Data collected included full medical history, demographic and anthropometric measures, polysomnography results, and the CPAP pressure obtained after manual titration which was further compared to 15 predictive equations retrieved from the literature. A total of 166 patients [137 (82.5%) males and 29 (17.5%) females] with severe OSA were recruited in the study. Their mean age was 55.91 ± 12.64, and their baseline diagnostic apnea hypopnea index was 71.75 ± 23.70. The mean CPAP manual titration pressure was 11.31 ± 2.9 cmH2O. Non-significant statistical difference was found (p > 0.05) when the mean titration pressure was calculated by Eqs. 2 (11.36 ± 2), 3 (11.55 ± 1.68), 10 (11.51 ± 2.29), 11 (11.14 ± 2.04), and 14 (11.71 ± 2.06), whereas the mean titration pressure calculated by Eqs. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15 differed significantly from the manual titration pressure (p < 0.05). Predictive equations suggested to calculate CPAP pressure, albeit simple and easy to apply, yielded variable results and should be investigated carefully before their use into clinical practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
各种预测方程对重度阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停患者的效用:资源有限情况下的临床实践观点
治疗阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)所需的持续气道正压(CPAP)可通过人工滴定研究来确定,而人工滴定研究通常既昂贵又耗时。因此,人们提出了不同的预测方程来简化 OSA 的治疗。这项工作的目的是在一组严重 OSA 患者中,比较人工滴定确定的 CPAP 与使用各种方程计算的 CPAP。这项研究的对象是确诊为严重 OSA 的患者。收集的数据包括完整的病史、人口统计学和人体测量指标、多导睡眠监测结果以及手动滴定后获得的 CPAP 压力,并将其与从文献中检索到的 15 个预测方程进行了进一步比较。研究共招募了 166 名严重 OSA 患者(男性 137 人(82.5%),女性 29 人(17.5%))。他们的平均年龄为(55.91 ± 12.64)岁,基线诊断呼吸暂停低通气指数为(71.75 ± 23.70)。CPAP 人工滴定压力的平均值为 11.31 ± 2.9 cmH2O。用公式 2(11.36 ± 2)、公式 3(11.55 ± 1.68)、公式 10(11.51 ± 2.29)、公式 11(11.14 ± 2.04)和 14(11.71 ± 2.06),而公式 1、4、5、6、7、8、9、12、13 和 15 计算出的平均滴定压力与手动滴定压力有显著差异(P < 0.05)。建议用于计算 CPAP 压力的预测方程虽然简单易用,但结果不一,在用于临床实践前应仔细研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Severity, mortality, and incidence of venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients Accuracy of convex probe EBUS-TBNA versus FDG-PET/CT imaging in diagnosis and mediastinal staging of lung cancer patients; an Egyptian Experience Role of pleural manometry and transthoracic ultrasonography to predict entrapped lung Comparing the outcome of using high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure The role of screening of patients proved to have gastroesophageal reflux disease by upper gastrointestinal endoscope for early detection of interstitial lung diseases
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1