Dataset Information

Oral appliance versus continuous positive airway pressure in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a 2-year follow-up.

ABSTRACT:

Study objectives

Oral appliance therapy has emerged as an important alternative to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in treating patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). In this study we report about the subjective and objective treatment outcome of oral appliance therapy and CPAP in patients with OSAS.

Design

Cohort study of a previously conducted randomized clinical trial.

Setting

University Medical Center, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Patients or participants

One hundred three patients with OSAS.

Interventions

CPAP and oral appliance therapy (Thornton Adjustable Positioner type-1, Airway Management, Inc., Dallas, TX, USA).

Measurements and results

Objective (polysomnography) and subjective (Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]) parameters were assessed after 1 and 2 years of treatment. Treatment was considered successful when the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) was < 5 or showed substantial reduction, defined as reduction in the index of at least 50% from the baseline value to a value of < 20 in a patient without OSAS symptoms while undergoing therapy. Regarding the proportions of successful treatments, no significant difference was found between oral appliance therapy and CPAP in treating mild to severe OSAS in a 2-year follow-up. More patients (not significant) dropped out under oral appliance therapy (47%) compared with CPAP (33%). Both therapies showed substantial improvements in polysomnographic and neurobehavioral outcomes. However, CPAP was more effective in lowering the AHI and showed higher oxyhemoglobin saturation levels compared to oral appliance therapy (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Oral appliance therapy should be considered as a viable treatment alternative to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients with mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). In patients with severe OSAS, CPAP remains the treatment of first choice.

Clinical trial information

The original randomized clinical trial, of which this study is a 2-year follow-up, is registered at ISRCTN.org; identifier: ISRCTN18174167; trial name: Management of the obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome: oral appliance versus continuous positive airway pressure therapy; URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN18174167.

SUBMITTER: Doff MH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3738037 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Oral appliance versus continuous positive airway pressure in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a 2-year follow-up.

Doff Michiel H J MH Hoekema Aarnoud A Wijkstra Peter J PJ van der Hoeven Johannes H JH Huddleston Slater James J R JJ de Bont Lambert G M LG Stegenga Boudewijn B

Sleep 20130901 9

<h4>Study objectives</h4>Oral appliance therapy has emerged as an important alternative to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in treating patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). In this study we report about the subjective and objective treatment outcome of oral appliance therapy and CPAP in patients with OSAS.<h4>Design</h4>Cohort study of a previously conducted randomized clinical trial.<h4>Setting</h4>University Medical Center, Groningen, The Netherlands.<h4>Patients or ...[more]

PMID: 23997361

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study objectivesObstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a sleep-related breathing disorder, commonly managed by either continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or a mandibular advancement device (MAD). Long-term follow-up and comparison regarding efficacy of these therapies is scarce. In this study the results of treatment, patient adherence, and satisfaction over a 10-year follow-up of these therapies are reported.MethodsThis is a longitudinal follow-up study taken from a subset of patients initially enrolled in a randomized controlled clinical trial of 103 patients with OSA (51 and 52 patients randomized for MAD and CPAP, respectively). After a 10-year follow-up period, 14 patients using MAD and 17 patients using CPAP could be evaluated for this longitudinal follow-up study. Data were analyzed at baseline, after 3 months and at 1-, 2-, and 10-year follow-up. All 31 patients with OSA underwent polysomnography and self-reported measurements.ResultsPolysomnography results showed a favorable outcome of both therapies at 10-year follow-up. At baseline, included patients in both groups did not significantly differ in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) values. At 10-year follow-up, both the MAD and CPAP groups showed a significant reduction in AHI. At baseline the mean AHI in the MAD group was 31.7 ± 20.6 events/h whereas in the CPAP group it was 49.2 ± 26.1 events/h. At 10-year follow-up the mean AHI in the MAD group was 9.9 ± 10.3 events/h and in the CPAP group it was 3.4 ± 5.4 events/h. Both therapies resulted in a substantial improvement in self-reported neurobehavioral outcomes at 10-year follow-up.ConclusionsBoth CPAP and MAD therapy demonstrate good and stable treatment effects after a 10-year follow-up period. Therefore, when indicated, both therapies are appropriate modalities for the long-term management of OSA.Clinical trial registrationRegistry: Netherlands Trial Register; Name: Management of the Obstructive Sleep Apnea-Hypopnea Syndrome: Oral Appliance versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy; Identifier: NL75; URL: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/75.

Dataset Information

Oral appliance versus continuous positive airway pressure in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a 2-year follow-up.

Study objectives

Design

Setting

Patients or participants

Interventions

Measurements and results

Conclusions

Clinical trial information

Publications

Oral appliance versus continuous positive airway pressure in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a 2-year follow-up.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets