Cargando…
Effect of Upper Airway Stimulation in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (EFFECT): A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial
Background: Several single-arm prospective studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of upper airway stimulation (UAS) for obstructive sleep apnea. There is limited evidence from randomized, controlled trials of the therapy benefit in terms of OSA burden and its symptoms. Methods: We co...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8269272/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34209581 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132880 |
_version_ | 1783720542415618048 |
---|---|
author | Heiser, Clemens Steffen, Armin Hofauer, Benedikt Mehra, Reena Strollo, Patrick J. Vanderveken, Olivier M. Maurer, Joachim T. |
author_facet | Heiser, Clemens Steffen, Armin Hofauer, Benedikt Mehra, Reena Strollo, Patrick J. Vanderveken, Olivier M. Maurer, Joachim T. |
author_sort | Heiser, Clemens |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: Several single-arm prospective studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of upper airway stimulation (UAS) for obstructive sleep apnea. There is limited evidence from randomized, controlled trials of the therapy benefit in terms of OSA burden and its symptoms. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled, crossover trial to examine the effect of therapeutic stimulation (Stim) versus sham stimulation (Sham) on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). We also examined the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ) on sleep architecture. We analyzed crossover outcome measures after two weeks using repeated measures models controlling for treatment order. Results: The study randomized 89 participants 1:1 to Stim (45) versus Sham (44). After one week, the AHI response rate was 76.7% with Stim and 29.5% with Sham, a difference of 47.2% (95% CI: 24.4 to 64.9, p < 0.001) between the two groups. Similarly, ESS was 7.5 ± 4.9 with Stim and 12.0 ± 4.3 with Sham, with a significant difference of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.1 to 6.1) between the two groups. The crossover phase showed no carryover effect. Among 86 participants who completed both phases, the treatment difference between Stim vs. Sham for AHI was −15.5 (95% CI −18.3 to −12.8), for ESS it was −3.3 (95% CI −4.4 to −2.2), and for FOSQ it was 2.1 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.8). UAS effectively treated both REM and NREM sleep disordered breathing. Conclusions: In comparison with sham stimulation, therapeutic UAS reduced OSA severity, sleepiness symptoms, and improved quality of life among participants with moderate-to-severe OSA. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8269272 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82692722021-07-10 Effect of Upper Airway Stimulation in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (EFFECT): A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial Heiser, Clemens Steffen, Armin Hofauer, Benedikt Mehra, Reena Strollo, Patrick J. Vanderveken, Olivier M. Maurer, Joachim T. J Clin Med Article Background: Several single-arm prospective studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of upper airway stimulation (UAS) for obstructive sleep apnea. There is limited evidence from randomized, controlled trials of the therapy benefit in terms of OSA burden and its symptoms. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled, crossover trial to examine the effect of therapeutic stimulation (Stim) versus sham stimulation (Sham) on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). We also examined the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ) on sleep architecture. We analyzed crossover outcome measures after two weeks using repeated measures models controlling for treatment order. Results: The study randomized 89 participants 1:1 to Stim (45) versus Sham (44). After one week, the AHI response rate was 76.7% with Stim and 29.5% with Sham, a difference of 47.2% (95% CI: 24.4 to 64.9, p < 0.001) between the two groups. Similarly, ESS was 7.5 ± 4.9 with Stim and 12.0 ± 4.3 with Sham, with a significant difference of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.1 to 6.1) between the two groups. The crossover phase showed no carryover effect. Among 86 participants who completed both phases, the treatment difference between Stim vs. Sham for AHI was −15.5 (95% CI −18.3 to −12.8), for ESS it was −3.3 (95% CI −4.4 to −2.2), and for FOSQ it was 2.1 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.8). UAS effectively treated both REM and NREM sleep disordered breathing. Conclusions: In comparison with sham stimulation, therapeutic UAS reduced OSA severity, sleepiness symptoms, and improved quality of life among participants with moderate-to-severe OSA. MDPI 2021-06-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8269272/ /pubmed/34209581 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132880 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Heiser, Clemens Steffen, Armin Hofauer, Benedikt Mehra, Reena Strollo, Patrick J. Vanderveken, Olivier M. Maurer, Joachim T. Effect of Upper Airway Stimulation in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (EFFECT): A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial |
title | Effect of Upper Airway Stimulation in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (EFFECT): A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial |
title_full | Effect of Upper Airway Stimulation in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (EFFECT): A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial |
title_fullStr | Effect of Upper Airway Stimulation in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (EFFECT): A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Effect of Upper Airway Stimulation in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (EFFECT): A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial |
title_short | Effect of Upper Airway Stimulation in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (EFFECT): A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial |
title_sort | effect of upper airway stimulation in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (effect): a randomized controlled crossover trial |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8269272/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34209581 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132880 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT heiserclemens effectofupperairwaystimulationinpatientswithobstructivesleepapneaeffectarandomizedcontrolledcrossovertrial AT steffenarmin effectofupperairwaystimulationinpatientswithobstructivesleepapneaeffectarandomizedcontrolledcrossovertrial AT hofauerbenedikt effectofupperairwaystimulationinpatientswithobstructivesleepapneaeffectarandomizedcontrolledcrossovertrial AT mehrareena effectofupperairwaystimulationinpatientswithobstructivesleepapneaeffectarandomizedcontrolledcrossovertrial AT strollopatrickj effectofupperairwaystimulationinpatientswithobstructivesleepapneaeffectarandomizedcontrolledcrossovertrial AT vandervekenolivierm effectofupperairwaystimulationinpatientswithobstructivesleepapneaeffectarandomizedcontrolledcrossovertrial AT maurerjoachimt effectofupperairwaystimulationinpatientswithobstructivesleepapneaeffectarandomizedcontrolledcrossovertrial |