Background. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is considered the first‐line treatment for patients with OSA, but Bilevel‐PAP (BiPAP) therapy is a recognized option for noncompliant/unresponsive patients to CPAP. The present study was designed to evaluate the role of ResMed VAuto in the management of two different issues raised because of the Philips recall: the treatment of naïve noncompliant/unresponsive patients to CPAP (Group A) and the switch to VAuto for patients already on treatment with Philips Auto‐BiPAP (Group B). Methods. Sixty‐four patients who required auto‐BiPAP treatment from August to December 2021 were included in the study. The efficacy of each mode of PAP therapy was compared between the two groups of patients. Results. Group A showed a statistically significant improvement in the apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) (7.4 ± 8.5 events∙h−1 vs. 15.2 ± 12.1 events∙h−1, p < 0.001), and oxygen desaturation index (ODI) (9.4 ± 8.9 events∙h−1 vs. 15.2 ± 8.8 events∙h−1, p = 0.029) during VAuto in comparison to CPAP, respectively. Conversely, a similar trend was found for patients in Group B for global AHI, but a statistically significant reduction was just found in supine AHI and ODI. In group B, an AHI <5 events∙h−1 was found in 89.3% during VAuto in comparison to 82.1% with Philips Auto‐BiPAP (p = ns). The levels of IPAPmax and EPAPmin were not statistically different between the two devices (p = 0.69 and p = 0.36, respectively). Conclusion. Bilevel ventilation in VAuto mode is effective in the clinical management of two different issues derived from the Philips recall. The switching between two different auto‐BiPAP devices can be performed easily and successfully.

Switch of Nocturnal Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation (NPPV) in Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA)

Tondo, Pasquale;
2022-01-01

Abstract

Background. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is considered the first‐line treatment for patients with OSA, but Bilevel‐PAP (BiPAP) therapy is a recognized option for noncompliant/unresponsive patients to CPAP. The present study was designed to evaluate the role of ResMed VAuto in the management of two different issues raised because of the Philips recall: the treatment of naïve noncompliant/unresponsive patients to CPAP (Group A) and the switch to VAuto for patients already on treatment with Philips Auto‐BiPAP (Group B). Methods. Sixty‐four patients who required auto‐BiPAP treatment from August to December 2021 were included in the study. The efficacy of each mode of PAP therapy was compared between the two groups of patients. Results. Group A showed a statistically significant improvement in the apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) (7.4 ± 8.5 events∙h−1 vs. 15.2 ± 12.1 events∙h−1, p < 0.001), and oxygen desaturation index (ODI) (9.4 ± 8.9 events∙h−1 vs. 15.2 ± 8.8 events∙h−1, p = 0.029) during VAuto in comparison to CPAP, respectively. Conversely, a similar trend was found for patients in Group B for global AHI, but a statistically significant reduction was just found in supine AHI and ODI. In group B, an AHI <5 events∙h−1 was found in 89.3% during VAuto in comparison to 82.1% with Philips Auto‐BiPAP (p = ns). The levels of IPAPmax and EPAPmin were not statistically different between the two devices (p = 0.69 and p = 0.36, respectively). Conclusion. Bilevel ventilation in VAuto mode is effective in the clinical management of two different issues derived from the Philips recall. The switching between two different auto‐BiPAP devices can be performed easily and successfully.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11369/465093
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 5
social impact