Cargando…

Assessment of the impact on compliance of a new CPAP system in obstructive sleep apnea

BACKGROUND: Despite the efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), compliance with therapy remains suboptimal. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of S9(TM) increased compliance in established CPAP users. METHODS: Sub...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wimms, Alison J., Richards, Glenn N., Benjafield, Adam V.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3575556/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22286779
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11325-012-0651-0
_version_ 1782259749598789632
author Wimms, Alison J.
Richards, Glenn N.
Benjafield, Adam V.
author_facet Wimms, Alison J.
Richards, Glenn N.
Benjafield, Adam V.
author_sort Wimms, Alison J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite the efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), compliance with therapy remains suboptimal. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of S9(TM) increased compliance in established CPAP users. METHODS: Subjects with OSA (50) were recruited into the study. When subjects entered the study, 28 days of respective compliance data were downloaded from the patient's usual CPAP device. Subjects trialled the S9 CPAP for 28 days. Subjects then resumed use of their usual CPAP for 28 days. Compliance data from the patient's usual CPAP pre- and post-trialling S9 were compared with data from the S9 CPAP. RESULTS: Patients were significantly more compliant when using the S9 than their usual CPAP device both pre- and post-S9 based on average daily usage. CPAP pre-S9 = 6.58 ± 1.95 (mean hours ± SD), S9 = 7.08 ± 1.18 h and CPAP post-S9 = 6.71 ± 1.72 h. The difference between CPAP pre-S9 and S9 was 0.5 h (p = 0.003). The difference between S9 and CPAP post-S9 was 0.35 h (p = 0.01). There was no significant difference between CPAP pre-S9 and CPAP post-S9 (p = 0.34). Patients also completed questionnaires comparing the S9 system to their usual device. Subjective feedback showed a strong preference for the S9. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were significantly more compliant when using the S9 than their usual CPAP device both pre- and post-S9 use.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3575556
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35755562013-02-21 Assessment of the impact on compliance of a new CPAP system in obstructive sleep apnea Wimms, Alison J. Richards, Glenn N. Benjafield, Adam V. Sleep Breath Original Article BACKGROUND: Despite the efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), compliance with therapy remains suboptimal. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of S9(TM) increased compliance in established CPAP users. METHODS: Subjects with OSA (50) were recruited into the study. When subjects entered the study, 28 days of respective compliance data were downloaded from the patient's usual CPAP device. Subjects trialled the S9 CPAP for 28 days. Subjects then resumed use of their usual CPAP for 28 days. Compliance data from the patient's usual CPAP pre- and post-trialling S9 were compared with data from the S9 CPAP. RESULTS: Patients were significantly more compliant when using the S9 than their usual CPAP device both pre- and post-S9 based on average daily usage. CPAP pre-S9 = 6.58 ± 1.95 (mean hours ± SD), S9 = 7.08 ± 1.18 h and CPAP post-S9 = 6.71 ± 1.72 h. The difference between CPAP pre-S9 and S9 was 0.5 h (p = 0.003). The difference between S9 and CPAP post-S9 was 0.35 h (p = 0.01). There was no significant difference between CPAP pre-S9 and CPAP post-S9 (p = 0.34). Patients also completed questionnaires comparing the S9 system to their usual device. Subjective feedback showed a strong preference for the S9. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were significantly more compliant when using the S9 than their usual CPAP device both pre- and post-S9 use. Springer-Verlag 2012-01-28 2013 /pmc/articles/PMC3575556/ /pubmed/22286779 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11325-012-0651-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2012 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Wimms, Alison J.
Richards, Glenn N.
Benjafield, Adam V.
Assessment of the impact on compliance of a new CPAP system in obstructive sleep apnea
title Assessment of the impact on compliance of a new CPAP system in obstructive sleep apnea
title_full Assessment of the impact on compliance of a new CPAP system in obstructive sleep apnea
title_fullStr Assessment of the impact on compliance of a new CPAP system in obstructive sleep apnea
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of the impact on compliance of a new CPAP system in obstructive sleep apnea
title_short Assessment of the impact on compliance of a new CPAP system in obstructive sleep apnea
title_sort assessment of the impact on compliance of a new cpap system in obstructive sleep apnea
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3575556/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22286779
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11325-012-0651-0
work_keys_str_mv AT wimmsalisonj assessmentoftheimpactoncomplianceofanewcpapsysteminobstructivesleepapnea
AT richardsglennn assessmentoftheimpactoncomplianceofanewcpapsysteminobstructivesleepapnea
AT benjafieldadamv assessmentoftheimpactoncomplianceofanewcpapsysteminobstructivesleepapnea