Copyright ©ERS Journals Ltd 2008 Impact of a controlled heated breathing tube humidifier on sleep quality during CPAP therapy in a cool sleeping environmentKlinik Ambrock, University of Witten-Herdecke, Hagen, Germany. CORRESPONDENCE: G. Nilius, Klinik Ambrock, 58091 Hagen, Germany. Fax: 49 2331974209. E-mail: nilius{at}klinik-ambrock.de Keywords: Continuous positive airway pressure, heated humidification, obstructive sleep apnoea, side-effects
Received: December 11, 2006
There are conflicting data on the effect of adding a heated humidifier to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy for patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS). The effects of heated humidification on sleep quality and treatment side-effects for patients who prefer a cold bedroom environment have not been studied. A randomised, controlled crossover trial involving 19 patients with a first-ever diagnosis of OSAS measured the effect of conventional heated humidification added to CPAP compared with a controlled heated breathing tube humidifier (ThermoSmart®; Fisher and Paykel Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) on sleep quality. During the night in the sleep laboratory at a mean room temperature of 14°C, less condensation formed with the controlled heated breathing tube humidifier (1.9 mL versus 35.3 mL) in the delivery system. In addition, the total sleep time, time spent in sleep stages 3 and 4, and rapid eye movement sleep phases were significantly longer and the overall side-effect score was lower than with conventional heated humidification. Patients on nasal continuous positive airway pressure desiring a cool bedroom temperature could benefit from controlled heated breathing tube humidification technology (with inputs from ambient temperature, set pressure and flow). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the preferred treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS). However, >60% of patients complain of symptoms in the nose and pharynx 1–3. One option for reducing such side-effects is the additional use of a heated humidifier, but few data are currently available on the effectiveness of this measure and the indications for its use have not been adequately defined 4–9. In addition, the humidification systems presently available consist only of a heating plate and water chamber and a control setting, which changes the temperature of the heater plate to raise or lower the humidity output from the chamber. These conventional humidifiers are limited in the level of humidity that can be delivered to the patient, owing to the ambient room temperature. Cool room temperatures can affect the delivery of humidity to the patient by cooling the temperature of the air travelling within the delivery tube, thereby reducing the maximum level of moisture the air can hold. The result is an accumulation of water in the breathing tube, or condensation, and consequentially, a level of humidity delivered to the patient's mask that is lower than that desired. During the winter months, many patients who require a heated humidifier to counter nasal/oral or pharyngeal problems complain of condensation forming in the tube of the CPAP device: a problem that has so far not been systematically investigated. It is conceivable that the condensation reduces effective CPAP pressure due to the reduction of the CPAP delivery tube's effective lumen 10. A new CPAP device (ThermoSmart®; Fisher and Paykel Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) incorporating new controlled heated breathing tube humidifier technology comprises an integrated humidifier consisting of a heater plate and water chamber in addition to a heated breathing tube. The internal algorithm of the humidifier takes into consideration a number of inputs, such as set pressure, ambient temperature and flow, and using these inputs adjusts the power to the heated breathing tube in order to maintain the individually adjustable heat and humidity all the way from the chamber output to the patient's mask. The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of CPAP with conventional heated humidification with that of a controlled heated breathing tube humidifier at a cool ambient temperature <20°C. In addition to sleep quality, the incidence and amount of condensation forming in the system overnight were measured during polysomnography (PSG).
During the winter season January–March 2005, all patients referred to the sleep laboratory (Klinik Ambrock, University of Witten-Herdecke, Hagen, Germany) with suspected OSAS were asked to fill in a questionnaire about their usual sleeping habits. Patients who preferred a bedroom temperature <20°C, or who habitually slept with a window open, were invited to participate in the study. The study was approved by the internal review board of the clinic. Patients were fully informed about the study aims and the need to give their written consent, and 19 patients (14 males and five females) with mean age 55±10.4 yrs and mean body mass index (BMI) 33±6.3 kg·m–2 agreed to be enrolled. All patients underwent PSG. Patients were investigated during the winter months and only on days with an outside temperature <15°C, so that unheated rooms had a temperature <18°C. One inclusion criterion was an apnoea/hypopnoea index (AHI) of >20 h–1. Exclusion criteria were: more than five central apnoea episodes per hour of sleep; an acute infection; decompensated cardiac insufficiency (New York Heart Association level 3 or 4); acute pulmonary embolism; acute coronary syndrome; and severe malignant illness. Patients with signs of respiratory insufficiency were also excluded.
Study design
On the following two nights in the sleep laboratory, the patients underwent treatment with the SleepStyleTM 600 CPAP device with ThermoSmart® (HC 602, software version 1.04; Fisher and Paykel Healthcare) with the heated breathing tube on setting 7, heater plate on setting 3 (recommended default settings by manufacturer) in treatment arm 1, and the SleepStyleTM 600 CPAP device with ThermoSmart® Humidification switched off but with an external conventional humidifier attached to the CPAP (HC100; Fisher and Paykel Healthcare) with the heater plate on setting 3 (commonly recommended default setting by manufacturer) in treatment arm 2, both at their respective titrated pressure, in randomised order. Standard PSGs were performed on both nights. Each morning, following the PSG, the patients were asked to complete a subjective questionnaire to record their sleep experience and side-effects. The delivery tube system connecting the device to the patient was set up in a defined manner for each of the condensation measurements. Three tubing systems were prepared for each patient. If the patient was disturbed and woken up by water in the tubing system, the entire tubing system was replaced. Before the start of treatment, and in the morning after completion of the measurements, all breathing tubes were weighed and the differences in weight recorded. The water in the humidifier was also weighed immediately before treatment and again in the morning. All measurements were made during the winter months January–April. The room in the sleep laboratory was not heated and ventilation was achieved by opening the window to simulate the home environment. For the measured data to be included in the study, the room temperature had to be <18°C. The room temperature was measured electronically and the signal fed into the PSG recordings.
Polysomnography
Questionnaire
Sleepiness
Statistics
Power analysis
Randomisation
After undergoing physical examination and diagnostic PSG, and having their medical history recorded, 19 patients gave their written consent to participate in the study. Their mean±SD age was 55±10.4 yrs, BMI 33±6.3 kg·m–2, AHI 53±27.6, minimal oxygen saturation 76±12.4% and ESS 11±5.0. According to the randomisation list, 10 patients were treated with the conventional humidification first; the other nine were treated with the controlled heated breathing tube humidifier.
Room temperature
The ambient relative humidity was not measured. However, air conditioning and central heating were switched off. Temperature and ambient relative humidity were adjusted by means of natural ventilation.
Delivery system
Condensation
CPAP pressure
The PSG data, diagnostic and under respiratory humidification treatment, with conventional humidification and controlled heated breathing tube humidification technology are presented in table 2
Heated conventional humidification was associated with significantly shorter total sleep time (TST) and significantly reduced sleep efficiency, and a significantly higher proportion of light sleep (sleep stage 1); in addition, the proportions of slow-wave and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep were also significantly lower vis-à-vis controlled heated breathing tube humidification technology.
Side-effects
Sleepiness After 3 weeks of treatment, the median ESS was reduced from 10.8 to 6.4±2.9 in the conventional humidification group and 6.2±3.2 in the controlled heated breathing tube humidification technology group (difference not significant).
The results of the present study show that, in a cool ambient temperature, conventional heated humidification is associated with a considerable amount of condensation in the CPAP mask and tubing system. This can be reliably avoided through the use of an auto-adjusted humidifier with a heated breathing tube. The difference between the two humidification modes with regard to sleep quality and subjective experience was significant. Controlled heated breathing tube humidification technology (ThermoSmart®) with a heated breathing tube significantly reduced light sleep (stage 1 sleep) and WASO. Conversely, the time spent in deep sleep (sleep stages 3 and 4), REM sleep and TST were significantly increased with controlled heated breathing tube humidification technology. Subjective disturbances with controlled heated breathing tube humidification technology were less frequent. CPAP therapy is the preferred treatment for OSAS. However, it unfortunately often leads to bothersome symptoms in the nose and throat 1–3. Experimental data 4, 5 have shown that if a mouth leak develops under nasal CPAP treatment, high unidirectional flow occurs in the nose, increasing both the blood supply to the nasal mucosa and nasal airway resistance. This can be avoided with heated humidification. Comparative studies have demonstrated that higher relative and absolute humidity levels are seen at the nose with heated versus cold humidification, such that any increase in nasal resistance will be less 6, 7. Available data on the practical application of heated humidification differ. A prospective randomised study by Massie et al. 8 involving only patients receiving CPAP therapy for the first time showed an improvement in CPAP compliance under heated humidification, which proved to be superior to cold humidification. Another study found that heated humidification improved compliance in patients who had bothersome nasopharyngeal symptoms under CPAP 9. In contrast, other studies have shown that neither the all-important initial acceptance of CPAP therapy nor the subjective side-effects experienced in the first treatment night were improved by heated humidification 14–17. Many questions about humidification treatment thus remain unanswered, e.g. the level of absolute humidity required for optimal treatment results is not clear, nor is the identification of patients who need humidifier-assisted treatment nor heated breathing tube humidification. To the current authors knowledge, no studies have thus far been carried out to investigate the impact of heated humidification on sleep quality in a cool ambient environment. Under simulated conditions, Bacon et al. 10 were able to show that condensation in the delivery tube caused the effective CPAP pressure in the mask to vary from 5.6 cmH2O (0.55 kPa) below the set pressure during the inspiration phase to 3.5 cmH2O (0.34 kPa) above it during the expiration phase. The current authors found no pressure differences between the mask and the CPAP device. If a patient in the present study was disturbed and woken up by the noise associated with condensation, the mask/tube system was replaced so that no pressure reduction could occur. Therefore, it is possible that if the CPAP set-up was left untouched despite a build-up of condensation, transient variations in mask pressure may have been present and observable on the PSG system. However, it must be mentioned that the design of the study might have had an impact on the varying results regarding sleep stages and sleep quality, as the change of tubing and mask could have caused a prolonged wake time. However, the change was only made when the patient woke due to water in the tubing. New masks and tubing were ready, so emptying the system would have taken more time than a complete change. Given that both set-ups consisted of a heater plate and water chamber with the only differing component in the treatment arms being the heated breathing tube and algorithm (with inputs from ambient temperature, flow and set pressure), it appears likely that the addition of the heated breathing tube and algorithm allows the prevention of condensation. Currently, the optimal level of humidification needed to reduce the side-effects of CPAP at the mucosa of the upper airways is still not known. For technical reasons, it was not possible to measure the level of humidity in the patients' upper airways. The fact that room temperature was not different in both groups and that a randomised crossover was given from night to night implies that room humidity and other ambient conditions were not different in either group. It is essential to note that these results apply only under the conditions as stated. All patients preferred a cool bedroom. These ambient conditions were controlled during measurements in the sleep laboratory. For this reason, the results are only valid for these conditions and results cannot be generalised to all ambient temperature conditions. All patients underwent CPAP treatment for the first time, and nasopharyngeal symptoms were not a criterion for inclusion in the study. The humidifier setting was kept constant during the night in the sleep lab, which is not representative of the home setting, where patients might adjust their settings to prevent further condensation once experiencing a build-up of condensation for the first time. Consequentially, when doing so, a patient is sacrificing humidity output and the results of the present study are unable to provide any information on what effect this might have on comfort. Further CPAP investigations should examine the question of whether compliance would improve in all patients undergoing such humidifier treatment or only in patients with severe nasopharyngeal symptoms. At the present time, there is no difference in cost between the controlled heated breathing tube humidifier investigated in the present study and a conventional CPAP device on the German market. The current authors consider the additional energy costs of heating the tube to be negligible. This means that economic considerations do not have to be taken into account in the selection of a CPAP device and form of humidification; medical arguments are the only factors to be taken into consideration. In conclusion, the present authors suggest that patients requiring heated humidification and desiring a cool bedroom temperature might benefit from usage of the controlled heated breathing tube humidification technology.
Statements of interest for K-H. Ruhle and the study itself can be found at www.erj.ersjournals.com/misc/statements.shtml
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||