HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 33/4/804    most recent 09031936.00023408v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Permissions Request Permissions Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Damjanovic, D. Articles by Sorichter, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Damjanovic, D. Articles by Sorichter, S.

Compliance in sleep apnoea therapy: influence of home care support and pressure mode

Dept of Pneumology, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

CORRESPONDENCE: S. Sorichter, Dept of Pneumology, University Hospital Freiburg, Killianstrasse 5, 79106 Freiburg, Germany. Fax: 49 7612707437. E-mail: stephan.sorichter{at}uniklinik-freiburg.de

Keywords: Continuous positive airway pressure, obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome, respiratory care, sleep apnoea diagnosis and treatment

Received: February 14, 2008
Accepted November 24, 2008

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is an effective treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea syndrom (OSAS) but therapy adherence is often low. The hypothesis that CPAP-adherence and clinical outcomes can be improved by either using an autoadjusting-CPAP (APAP) device or an intensive support was tested.

A controlled parallel group study was performed with 100 newly diagnosed OSAS patients, randomised into 4 groups (n = 25 each): standard or intensive support plus either APAP or CPAP. Intensive support included education and monthly home visits for 6 months. Clinical outcome was monitored by polysomnography at CPAP initiation and, after 3 and 9 months, compliance data were downloaded from the CPAP devices.

After 9 months, intensively supported patients returned for follow-up in 88 versus 68% in the standard-support-group. Daily usage (mean±SEM 5.7±0.2 for intensive support versus 4.6±0.4 h for standard support), percentage of days used (80.4±2.8 versus 57.0±5.9%) and proportion of individual sleep time (80.6±3.2 versus 64.9±6.2%) were also higher. There was no significant difference between APAP or CPAP, (daily usage 5.2±0.4 versus 5.1±0.3 h, percentage of days 67.9±5.0 versus 69.2±4.9%, proportion of sleep time 72.5±5.0% versus 72.1±5.2%, for APAP and CPAP) but retention rate was higher with CPAP.

In summary, intensive support after continuous positive airway pressure initiation, rather than the application of autoadjusting-continuous positive airway pressure, increased therapy adherence.