0
Articles |

A Randomized Crossover Study of an Oral Appliance vs Nasal-Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in the Treatment of Mild-Moderate Obstructive Sleep Apnea FREE TO VIEW

Kathleen A. Ferguson; Takashi Ono; Alan A. Lowe; Sean P. Keenan; John A. Fleetham
Author and Funding Information

From the Division of Respiratory Medicine and Department of Clinical Dental Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.


1996 BY THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CHEST PHYSICIANS


Chest. 1996;109(5):1269-1275. doi:10.1378/chest.109.5.1269
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Abstract

Study objective: To compare efficacy, side effects, patient compliance, and preference between oral appliance (OA) therapy and nasal-continuous positive airway pressure (N-CPAP) therapy.

Design: Randomized, prospective, crossover study.

Setting: University hospital and tertiary sleep referral center.

Patients: Twenty-seven unselected patients with mild-moderate obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

Interventions: There was a 2-week wash-in and a 2-week wash-out period, and 2x4-month treatment periods (OA and N-CPAP). Efficacy, side effects, compliance, and preference were evaluated by a questionnaire and home sleep monitoring.

Measurements and results: Two patients dropped out early in the study and treatment results are presented on the remaining 25 patients. The apnea/hypopnea index was lower with N-CPAP (3.5±1.6) (mean±SD) than with the OA (9.7±7.3) (p<0.05). Twelve of the 25 patients who used the OA (48%) were treatment successes (reduction of apnea/hypopnea to <10/h and relief of symptoms), 6 (24%) were compliance failures (unable or unwilling to use the treatment), and 7 (28%) were treatment failures (failure to reduce apnea/hypopnea index to <10/h and/or failure to relieve symptoms). Four people refused to use N-CPAP after using the OA. Thirteen of the 21 patients who used N-CPAP were overall treatment successes (62%), 8 were compliance failures (38%), and there were no treatment failures. Side effects were more common and the patients were less satisfied with N-CPAP (p<0.005). Seven patients were treatment successes with both treatments, six of these patients preferred OA, and one preferred N-CPAP as a long-term treatment.

Conclusions: We conclude that OA is an effective treatment in some patients with mild-moderate OSA and is associated with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction than N-CPAP.


Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
Guidelines
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543