Cargando…
Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula on Sleep-disordered Breathing and Sleep Quality in Patients With Acute Stroke
Introduction Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is common after stroke. Although the standard treatment of SDB is continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) ventilation, the patient’s intolerance and discomfort result in low adherence rates. Alternatively, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) may be useful...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cureus
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7437095/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32832300 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.9303 |
Sumario: | Introduction Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is common after stroke. Although the standard treatment of SDB is continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) ventilation, the patient’s intolerance and discomfort result in low adherence rates. Alternatively, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) may be useful as it reduces upper airway collapse with low level of positive pressure and well tolerability. The aim of this study was to investigate whether HFNC therapy reduces SDB and improves sleep quality with higher compliance rate. Methods We included acute stroke patients with SDB for the assessment of apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) >5/h using WatchPAT 200 (Itamar Medical Ltd, Caesarea, Israel). Patients who met inclusion criteria received HFNC therapy (40 L/min) with monitoring by WatchPAT. AHI, oxygen desaturation index (ODI), sleep efficiency, and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep were compared in patients with and without HFNC therapy. We also evaluated the patient’s comfort of HFNC therapy (discomfort or not). Results Among 17 patients assessed for AHI, 12 received HFNC therapy. HFNC therapy was not adhered in two patients due to intolerance. Eight patients remained for final analysis. There were no differences in SDB and sleep quality with and without HFNC therapy as follows: HFNC therapy vs control; AHI 24.9 ± 20.1 vs 21.3 ± 15.0/h (p = 0.63), ODI 16.2 ± 16.5 vs 12.9 ± 12.3/h (p = 0.54), sleep efficiency 80.4 ± 12.9 vs 87.1 ± 6.2 (p = 0.28), percentage of REM sleep 19.4% ± 9.6% vs 27.6% ± 8.9% (p = 0.07). Two patients (17%) complained of discomfort among eight patients. Conclusion HFNC therapy did not improve SDB and sleep quality. Nonadherence and discomfort were observed in HFNC therapy. We need a large trial to confirm this result. |
---|