Randomized controlled trial of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) versus servoventilation in patients with CPAP-induced central sleep apnea (complex sleep apnea)

Adaptive servo-ventilation and mortality in patients with systolic heart failure and central sleep apnea: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Central sleep apnea (CSA) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Treatment of CSA with a certain type of adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) device that targets minute ventilation (ASVmv) was found to be harmful in these patients. A newer generation of ASV devices that target peak flow (ASVpf) is presumed to have different effects on ventilation and airway patency. We analyzed our registry of patients with HFrEF-CSA to examine the effect of exposure to ASV and role of each type of ASV device on mortality.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study in patients with HFrEF and CSA who were treated with ASV devices between 2008 and 2015 at a single institution. Mortality data were collected through the institutional data honest broker. Usage data were obtained from vendors' and manufacturers' servers. Median follow-up was 64 months.

RESULTS

The registry included 90 patients with HFrEF-CSA who were prescribed ASV devices. Applying a 3-h-per-night usage cutoff, we found a survival advantage at 64 months for those who used the ASV device above the cutoff (n = 59; survival 76%) compared to those who did not (n = 31; survival 49%; hazard ratio 0.44; CI 95%, 0.20 to 0.97; P = 0.04). The majority (n = 77) of patients received ASVpf devices with automatically adjusting end-expiratory pressure (EPAP) and the remainder (n = 13) received ASVmv devices mostly with fixed EPAP (n = 12). There was a trend towards a negative correlation between ASVmv with fixed EPAP and survival.

CONCLUSION

In this population of patients with HFrEF and CSA, there was no evidence that usage of ASV devices was associated with increased mortality. However, there was evidence of differential effects of type of ASV technology on mortality.

Sleep and Breathing Conference highlights 2023: a summary by ERS Assembly 4

This paper presents some of the highlights of the Sleep and Breathing Conference 2023 https://bit.ly/46MxJml.

International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea

BACKGROUND

Evaluation and interpretation of the literature on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) allows for consolidation and determination of the key factors important for clinical management of the adult OSA patient. Toward this goal, an international collaborative of multidisciplinary experts in sleep apnea evaluation and treatment have produced the International Consensus statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (ICS:OSA).

METHODS

Using previously defined methodology, focal topics in OSA were assigned as literature review (LR), evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBR-R) formats. Each topic incorporated the available and relevant evidence which was summarized and graded on study quality. Each topic and section underwent iterative review and the ICS:OSA was created and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICS:OSA addresses OSA syndrome definitions, pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors for disease, screening methods, diagnostic testing types, multiple treatment modalities, and effects of OSA treatment on multiple OSA-associated comorbidities. Specific focus on outcomes with positive airway pressure (PAP) and surgical treatments were evaluated.

CONCLUSION

This review of the literature consolidates the available knowledge and identifies the limitations of the current evidence on OSA. This effort aims to create a resource for OSA evidence-based practice and identify future research needs. Knowledge gaps and research opportunities include improving the metrics of OSA disease, determining the optimal OSA screening paradigms, developing strategies for PAP adherence and longitudinal care, enhancing selection of PAP alternatives and surgery, understanding health risk outcomes, and translating evidence into individualized approaches to therapy.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for central sleep apnoea in adults

BACKGROUND

Central sleep apnoea (CSA) is characterised by abnormal patterns of ventilation during sleep due to a dysfunctional drive to breathe. Consequently, people with CSA may present poor sleep quality, sleep fragmentation, inattention, fatigue, daytime sleepiness, and reduced quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPV) for the treatment of adults with CSA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus on 6 September 2021. We applied no restrictions on language of publication. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of included studies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported in full text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 1.0, and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. In the case of disagreement, a third review author was consulted.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs with a total of 1936 participants, ranging from 10 to 1325 participants. All studies had important methodological limitations. We assessed most studies (11 studies) as at high risk of bias for at least one domain, and all studies as at unclear risk of bias for at least two domains. The trials included participants aged > 18 years old, of which 70% to 100% were men, who were followed from one week to 60 months. The included studies assessed the effects of different modes of NIPV and CSA. Most participants had CSA associated with chronic heart failure. Because CSA encompasses a variety of causes and underlying clinical conditions, data were carefully analysed, and different conditions and populations were not pooled. The findings for the primary outcomes for the seven evaluated comparisons are presented below.  Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) plus best supportive care versus best supportive care in CSA associated with chronic heart failure In the short term, CPAP plus best supportive care may reduce central apnoea hypopnoea index (AHI) (mean difference (MD) -14.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) -20.11 to -9.09; 1 study; 205 participants). However, CPAP plus best supportive care may result in little to no difference in cardiovascular mortality compared to best supportive care alone. The evidence for the effect of CPAP plus best supportive care on all-cause mortality is very uncertain. No adverse effects were observed with CPAP, and the results for adverse events in the best supportive care group were not reported. Adaptive servo ventilation (ASV) versus CPAP in CSA associated with chronic heart failure The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ASV versus CPAP on quality of life evaluated in both the short and medium term. Data on adverse events were not reported, and it is not clear whether data were sought but not found. ASV versus bilevel ventilation in CSA associated with chronic heart failure In the short term, ASV may result in little to no difference in central AHI. No adverse events were detected with ASV, and the results for adverse events in the bilevel ventilation group were not reported. ASV plus best supportive care versus best supportive care in CSA associated with chronic heart failure In the medium term, ASV plus best supportive care may reduce AHI compared to best supportive care alone (MD -20.30, 95% CI -28.75 to -11.85; 1 study; 30 participants). In the long term, ASV plus best supportive care likely increases cardiovascular mortality compared to best supportive care (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 1.04, 1.49; 1 study; 1325 participants). The evidence suggests that ASV plus best supportive care may result in little to no difference in quality of life in the short, medium, and long term, and in all-cause mortality in the medium and long term. Data on adverse events were evaluated but not reported. ASV plus best supportive care versus best supportive care in CSA with acute heart failure with preserved ejection fraction Only adverse events were reported for this comparison, and no adverse events were recorded in either group. ASV versus CPAP maintenance in CPAP-induced CSA In the short term, ASV may slightly reduce central AHI (MD -4.10, 95% CI -6.67 to -1.53; 1 study; 60 participants), but may result in little to no difference in quality of life. Data on adverse events were not reported, and it is not clear whether data were sought but not found. ASV versus bilevel ventilation in CPAP-induced CSA In the short term, ASV may slightly reduce central AHI (MD -8.70, 95% CI -11.42 to -5.98; 1 study; 30 participants) compared to bilevel ventilation. Data on adverse events were not reported, and it is not clear whether data were sought but not found.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CPAP plus best supportive care may reduce central AHI in people with CSA associated with chronic heart failure compared to best supportive care alone. Although ASV plus best supportive care may reduce AHI in people with CSA associated with chronic heart failure, it likely increases cardiovascular mortality in these individuals. In people with CPAP-induced CSA, ASV may slightly reduce central AHI compared to bilevel ventilation and to CPAP. In the absence of data showing a favourable impact on meaningful patient-centred outcomes and defining clinically important differences in outcomes in CSA patients, these findings need to be interpreted with caution. Considering the level of certainty of the available evidence and the heterogeneity of participants with CSA, we could draw no definitive conclusions, and further high-quality trials focusing on patient-centred outcomes, such as quality of life, quality of sleep, and longer-term survival, are needed to determine whether one mode of NIPV is better than another or than best supportive care for any particular CSA patient group.

Treatment-emergent central sleep apnea: a unique sleep-disordered breathing

Treatment-emergent central sleep apnea (TECSA) is a specific form of sleep-disordered breathing, characterized by the emergence or persistence of central apneas during treatment for obstructive sleep apnea. The purpose of this review was to summarize the definition, epidemiology, potential mechanisms, clinical characteristics, and treatment of TECSA. We searched for relevant articles up to January 31, 2020, in the PubMed database. The prevalence of TECSA varied widely in different studies. The potential mechanisms leading to TECSA included ventilatory control instability, low arousal threshold, activation of lung stretch receptors, and prolonged circulation time. TECSA may be a self-limited disorder in some patients and could be resolved spontaneously over time with ongoing treatment of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). However, central apneas persist even with the regular CPAP therapy in some patients, and new treatment approaches such as adaptive servo-ventilation may be necessary. We concluded that several questions regarding TECSA remain, despite the findings of many studies, and it is necessary to carry out large surveys with basic scientific design and clinical trials for TECSA to clarify these irregularities. Further, it will be vital to evaluate the baseline demographic and polysomnographic data of TECSA patients more carefully and comprehensively.

Treatment-Emergent Central Apnea: Physiologic Mechanisms Informing Clinical Practice

The purpose of this review was to describe our management approach to patients with treatment-emergent central sleep apnea (TECSA). The emergence of central sleep apnea during positive airway pressure therapy occurs in approximately 8% of titration studies for OSA, and it has been associated with several demographic, clinical, and polysomnographic factors, as well as factors related to the titration study itself. TECSA shares similar pathophysiology with central sleep apnea. In fact, central and OSA pathophysiologic mechanisms are inextricably intertwined, with ventilatory instability and upper airway narrowing occurring in both entities. TECSA is a "dynamic" process, with spontaneous resolution with ongoing positive airway pressure therapy in most patients, persistence in some, or appearing de novo in a minority of patients. Management strategy for TECSA aims to eliminate abnormal respiratory events, stabilize sleep architecture, and improve the underlying contributing medical comorbidities. CPAP therapy remains a standard therapy for TECSA. Expectant management is appropriate given its transient nature in most cases, whereas select patients would benefit from an early switch to an alternative positive airway pressure modality. Other treatment options include supplemental oxygen and pharmacologic therapy.

Sleep-Related Breathing Disorders: When CPAP Is Not Enough

Three decades ago, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was introduced to treat obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Shortly after, bilevel positive airway pressure devices (BPAP) that independently adjusted inspiratory and expiratory positive airway pressure were developed to treat complex sleep-related breathing disorders unresponsive to CPAP. Based on the bilevel positive airway pressure platform (hardware) governed by propriety algorithms (software), advanced modes of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) were developed to address complex cardiorespiratory pathophysiology beyond OSA. This review summarizes key aspects of different bilevel PAP therapies (BPAP with/without backup rate, adaptive servoventilation, and volume-assured pressure support) to treat common sleep-related hypoventilation disorders, treatment-emergent central sleep apnea, and central sleep apnea syndromes.

Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Achieving Adherence to Positive Airway Pressure Treatment and Dealing with Complications

Obstructive sleep apnea is a common and treatable condition, but therapeutic adherence is limited by numerous factors. Despite advances in positive airway pressure (PAP) technology and a multitude of effective pharmacologic and behavioral therapeutic interventions to overcome the most common barriers to PAP, adherence has not increased significantly over the past 30 years. This review aims to identify the most important factors that impact adherence, common barriers to treatment, and evidence-based treatment strategies to maximize the effectiveness of PAP treatment. Complications of PAP treatment and mitigation techniques are also discussed.

The use and effectiveness of adaptive servo ventilation in central sleep apnea: a study of consecutive sleep clinic patients

The use of adaptive servo ventilation to treat central sleep apnea in the clinical setting is incompletely understood and could be under-utilized. We reviewed our experience of adaptive servo ventilation use in patients with central sleep apnea. This study shows the effectiveness of adaptive servo ventilation in treating patients with central sleep apnea, irrespective of a predisposing factor, as assessed during a 4-week treatment trial. Results show that adaptive servo ventilation was effective and superior to continuous positive airway pressure in controlling central sleep apnea and improving symptoms. Only a small proportion of these patients had comorbid heart failure. Early treatment with adaptive servo ventilation may improve long-term adherence to therapy. These findings highlight the utility of adaptive servo ventilation in the management of central sleep apnea.

Central sleep apnoea and periodic breathing in heart failure: prognostic significance and treatment options

Central sleep apnoea (CSA) including periodic breathing is prevalent in more than one-third of patients with heart failure and is highly and independently associated with poor outcomes. Optimal treatment is still debated and well-conducted studies regarding efficacy and impact on outcomes of available treatment options are limited, particularly in cardiac failure with preserved ejection fraction. While continuous positive airway pressure and oxygen reduce breathing disturbances by 50%, adaptive servoventilation (ASV) normalises breathing disturbances by to controlling the underlying mechanism of CSA. Results are contradictory regarding impact of ASV on hard outcomes. Cohorts and registry studies show survival improvement under ASV, while secondary analyses of the large SERVE-HF randomised trial showed an excess mortality in cardiac failure with reduced ejection fraction. The current priority is to understand which phenotypes of cardiac failure patients may benefit from treatment guiding individualised and personalised management.

Unilateral phrenic nerve stimulation in the therapeutical algorithm of central sleep apnoea in heart failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Central sleep apnoea (CSA) is highly prevalent in patients with heart failure and substantially impairs survival. If optimal cardiac treatment fails, alternative therapeutical options, including positive airway pressure (PAP) therapies, drugs or application of oxygen and carbon dioxide are considered to suppress CSA which interfere with the complex underlying pathophysiology. Most recently, unilateral phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) has been studied in these patients. Therefore, there is an urgent need to critically evaluate efficacy, potential harm and positioning of PNS in current treatment algorithms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Data from case series and limited randomized controlled trials demonstrate the feasibility of the invasive approach and acceptable peri-interventional adverse events. PNS reduces CSA by 50%, a figure comparable with continuous PAP or oxygen. However, PNS cannot improve any comorbid upper airways obstruction. A number of fatalities due to malignant cardiac arrhythmias or other cardiac events have been reported, although the association with the therapy is unclear.

SUMMARY

PNS offers an additional option to the therapeutical portfolio. Intervention-related adverse events and noninvasive alternatives need clear discussion with the patient. The excess mortality in the SERVE-HF study has mainly been attributed to sudden cardiac death. Therefore, previous cardiac fatalities under PNS urge close observation in future studies as long-term data are missing.

More than Heart Failure: Central Sleep Apnea and Sleep-Related Hypoventilation

Central sleep apnea (CSA) comprises a variety of breathing patterns and clinical entities. They can be classified into 2 categories based on the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the arterial blood. Nonhypercapnic CSA is usually characterized by a periodic breathing pattern, while hypercapnic CSA is based on hypoventilation. The latter CSA form is associated with central nervous, neuromuscular, and rib cage disorders as well as obesity and certain medication or substance intake. In contrast, nonhypercapnic CSA is typically accompanied by an overshoot of the ventilation and often associated with heart failure, cerebrovascular diseases, and stay in high altitude. CSA and hypoventilation syndromes are often considered separately, but pathophysiological aspects frequently overlap. An integrative approach helps to recognize underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and to choose adequate therapeutic strategies. Research in the last decades improved our insights; nevertheless, diagnostic tools are not always appropriately chosen to perform comprehensive sleep studies. This supports misinterpretation and misclassification of sleep disordered breathing. The purpose of this article is to highlight unresolved problems, raise awareness for different pathophysiological components and to discuss the evidence for targeted therapeutic strategies.

Nocturnal supports for patients with central sleep apnea and heart failure: a systemic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Sleep apnea probably brings poor outcomes of chronic heart failure (CHF), and some methods show benefit to patients with heart failure (HF) and central sleep apnea (CSA). Our study based on the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to find out the most beneficial therapy of nocturnal support to decrease the apnea hypopnea index (AHI).

Methods

The PubMed, and the Web of Science were used to find out the included studies. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.1 were performed to this systemic review and network meta-analysis.

Results

After searching and screening the articles, finally we included 14 articles with total 919 patients, and 4 arms [adaptive servo ventilation (ASV), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), oxygen treatment, control]. Compared with the control group, the therapeutic regimens did not show significant difference in AHI. Ranking the different nocturnal supports in the order of estimated probabilities of each treatment by using the network meta-analysis, the result showed that ASV was the best one (87.8%), followed by oxygen (12.2%), CPAP (0%), and control (0%).

Conclusions

Based on our study, the adoptive servo ventilation is probably the best choice to down the AHI in patients with HF and CSA.

Adaptive servoventilation in clinical practice: beyond SERVE-HF?

Adaptive servoventilation (ASV) has proven effective at suppressing breathing disturbances during sleep, improving quality of life and cardiac surrogate parameters. Since the publication of the SERVE-HF-trial, ASV became restricted. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of the SERVE-HF inclusion criteria in real life and estimate the portion of patients with these criteria with or without risk factors who are undergoing ASV treatment.

We performed a retrospective study of all patients who were treated with ASV in a university-affiliated sleep laboratory. We reviewed the history of cardiovascular diseases, echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and polysomnography.

From 1998 to 2015, 293 patients received ASV, of which 255 (87.0%) had cardiovascular diseases and 118 (40.3%) had HF. Among those with HF, the LVEF was ≤45% in 47 patients (16.0%). Only 12 patients (4.1%) had LVEF <30%. The SERVE-HF inclusion criteria were present in 28 (9.6%) ASV recipients. Of these patients, 3 died within 30–58 months of therapy, all with systolic HF and a LVEF <30%.

In this study, only a small minority of ASV patients fell in the risk group. The number of fatalities did not exceed the expected mortality in optimally treated systolic HF patients.

The majority of ASV patients do not fulfil the risk criteria. Fatalities under ASV did not exceed expected figures.http://ow.ly/V2HI30fBURh

Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Achieving Adherence to Positive Airway Pressure Treatment and Dealing with Complications

Obstructive sleep apnea is a common and treatable condition, but therapeutic adherence is limited by numerous factors. Despite advances in positive airway pressure (PAP) technology and a multitude of effective pharmacologic and behavioral therapeutic interventions to overcome the most common barriers to PAP, adherence has not increased significantly over the past 30 years. This review aims to identify the most important factors that impact adherence, common barriers to treatment, and evidence-based treatment strategies to maximize the effectiveness of PAP treatment. Complications of PAP treatment and mitigation techniques are also discussed.

Definition, discrimination, diagnosis and treatment of central breathing disturbances during sleep

The complexity of central breathing disturbances during sleep has become increasingly obvious. They present as central sleep apnoeas (CSAs) and hypopnoeas, periodic breathing with apnoeas, or irregular breathing in patients with cardiovascular, other internal or neurological disorders, and can emerge under positive airway pressure treatment or opioid use, or at high altitude. As yet, there is insufficient knowledge on the clinical features, pathophysiological background and consecutive algorithms for stepped-care treatment. Most recently, it has been discussed intensively if CSA in heart failure is a “marker” of disease severity or a “mediator” of disease progression, and if and which type of positive airway pressure therapy is indicated. In addition, disturbances of respiratory drive or the translation of central impulses may result in hypoventilation, associated with cerebral or neuromuscular diseases, or severe diseases of lung or thorax. These statements report the results of an European Respiratory Society Task Force addressing actual diagnostic and therapeutic standards. The statements are based on a systematic review of the literature and a systematic two-step decision process. Although the Task Force does not make recommendations, it describes its current practice of treatment of CSA in heart failure and hypoventilation.

Advanced positive airway pressure modes: adaptive servo ventilation and volume assured pressure support

INTRODUCTION

Volume assured pressure support (VAPS) and adaptive servo ventilation (ASV) are non-invasive positive airway pressure (PAP) modes with sophisticated negative feedback control systems (servomechanism), having the capability to self-adjust in real time its respiratory controlled variables to patient's respiratory fluctuations. However, the widespread use of VAPS and ASV is limited by scant clinical experience, high costs, and the incomplete understanding of propriety algorithmic differences in devices' response to patient's respiratory changes. Hence, we will review and highlight similarities and differences in technical aspects, control algorithms, and settings of each mode, focusing on the literature search published in this area.

AREAS COVERED

One hundred twenty relevant articles were identified by Scopus, PubMed, and Embase databases from January 2010 to 2016, using a combination of MeSH terms and keywords. Articles were further supplemented by pearling. Recommendations were based on the literature review and the authors' expertise in this area. Expert commentary: ASV and VAPS differ in their respiratory targets and response to a respiratory fluctuation. The VAPS mode targets a more consistent minute ventilation, being recommended in the treatment of sleep related hypoventilation disorders, while ASV mode attempts to provide a more steady breathing airflow pattern, treating successfully most central sleep apnea syndromes.

Clinical predictors of central sleep apnea evoked by positive airway pressure titration

PURPOSE

Treatment-emergent central sleep apnea (TECSA), also called complex apnea, occurs in 5%-15% of sleep apnea patients during positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy, but the clinical predictors are not well understood. The goal of this study was to explore possible predictors in a clinical sleep laboratory cohort, which may highlight those at risk during clinical management.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 728 patients who underwent PAP titration (n=422 split-night; n=306 two-night). Demographics and self-reported medical comorbidities, medications, and behaviors as well as standard physiological parameters from the polysomnography (PSG) data were analyzed. We used regression analysis to assess predictors of binary presence or absence of central apnea index (CAI) ≥5 during split-night PSG (SN-PSG) versus full-night PSG (FN-PSG) titrations.

RESULTS

CAI ≥5 was present in 24.2% of SN-PSG and 11.4% of FN-PSG patients during titration. Male sex, maximum continuous positive airway pressure, and use of bilevel positive airway pressure were predictors of TECSA, and rapid eye movement dominance was a negative predictor, for both SN-PSG and FN-PSG patients. Self-reported narcotics were a positive predictor of TECSA, and the time spent in stage N2 sleep was a negative predictor only for SN-PSG patients. Self-reported history of stroke and the CAI during the diagnostic recording predicted TECSA only for FN-PSG patients.

CONCLUSION

Clinical predictors of treatment-evoked central apnea spanned demographic, medical history, sleep physiology, and titration factors. Improved predictive models may be increasingly important as diagnostic and therapeutic modalities move away from the laboratory setting, even as PSG remains the gold standard for characterizing primary central apnea and TECSA.

A novel adaptive servoventilation (ASVAuto) for the treatment of central sleep apnea associated with chronic use of opioids

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and patient comfort of a new mode of minute ventilation-targeted adaptive servoventilation (ASVAuto) with auto-titrating expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP) versus bilevel with back-up respiratory rate (bilevel-ST) in patients with central sleep apnea (CSA) associated with chronic use of opioid medications.

METHODS

Prospective, randomized, crossover polysomnography (PSG) study. Eighteen consecutive patients (age ≥ 18 years) who had been receiving opioid therapy (≥ 6 months), and had sleep disordered breathing with CSA (central apnea index [CAI] ≥ 5) diagnosed during an overnight sleep study or positive airway pressure (PAP) titration were enrolled to undergo 2 PSG studies-one with ASVAuto and one with bilevel-ST. Patients completed 2 questionnaires after each PSG; Morning After Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire and PAP Comfort Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Patients had a mean age of 52.9 ± 15.3 years. PSG prior to randomization showed an apnea hypopnea index (AHI) of 50.3 ± 22.2 and CAI of 13.0 ± 18.7. Titration with ASVAuto versus bilevel-ST showed that there were significant differences with respect to AHI and CAI. The AHI and CAI were significantly lower on ASVAuto than bilevel-ST (2.5 ± 3.5 versus 16.3 ± 20.9 [p = 0.0005], and 0.4 ± 0.8 versus 9.4 ± 18.8 [p = 0.0002], respectively). Respiratory parameters were normalized in 83.3% of patients on ASVAuto versus 33.3% on bilevel-ST. Patients felt more awake and alert on ASVAuto than bilevel-ST based on scores from Morning After Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (p = 0.0337).

CONCLUSIONS

The ASVAuto was significantly more effective than bilevel-ST for the treatment of CSA associated with chronic opioid use.

Noninvasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure

After the institution of positive-pressure ventilation, the use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) through an interface substantially increased. The first technique was continuous positive airway pressure; but, after the introduction of pressure support ventilation at the end of the 20th century, this became the main modality. Both techniques, and some others that have been recently introduced and which integrate some technological innovations, have extensively demonstrated a faster improvement of acute respiratory failure in different patient populations, avoiding endotracheal intubation and facilitating the release of conventional invasive mechanical ventilation. In acute settings, NIV is currently the first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation as well as for acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema and should be considered in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory insufficiency, in difficult weaning, and in the prevention of postextubation failure. Alternatively, it can also be used in the postoperative period and in cases of pneumonia and asthma or as a palliative treatment. NIV is currently used in a wide range of acute settings, such as critical care and emergency departments, hospital wards, palliative or pediatric units, and in pre-hospital care. It is also used as a home care therapy in patients with chronic pulmonary or sleep disorders. The appropriate selection of patients and the adaptation to the technique are the keys to success. This review essentially analyzes the evidence of benefits of NIV in different populations with acute respiratory failure and describes the main modalities, new devices, and some practical aspects of the use of this technique.

The complex sleep apnea resolution study: a prospective randomized controlled trial of continuous positive airway pressure versus adaptive servoventilation therapy

INTRODUCTION

Prior studies show that adaptive servoventilation (ASV) is initially more effective than continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for patients with complex sleep apnea syndrome (CompSAS), but choosing therapies has been controversial because residual central breathing events may resolve over time in many patients receiving chronic CPAP therapy. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, prospective trial comparing clinical and polysomnographic outcomes over prolonged treatment of patients with CompSAS, with CPAP versus ASV.

METHODS

Qualifying participants meeting criteria for CompSAS were randomized to optimized CPAP or ASV treatment. Clinical and polysomnographic data were obtained at baseline and after 90 days of therapy.

RESULTS

We randomized 66 participants (33 to each treatment). At baseline, the diagnostic apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) was 37.7 ± 27.8 (central apnea index [CAI] = 3.2 ± 5.8) and best CPAP AHI was 37.0 ± 24.9 (CAI 29.7 ± 25.0). After second-night treatment titration, the AHI was 4.7 ± 8.1 (CAI = 1.1 ± 3.7) on ASV and 14.1 ± 20.7 (CAI = 8.8 ± 16.3) on CPAP (P ≤ 0.0003). At 90 days, the ASV versus CPAP AHI was 4.4 ± 9.6 versus 9.9 ± 11.1 (P = 0.0024) and CAI was 0.7 ± 3.4 versus 4.8 ± 6.4 (P < 0.0001), respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, success (AHI < 10) at 90 days of therapy was achieved in 89.7% versus 64.5% of participants treated with ASV and CPAP, respectively (P = 0.0214). Compliance and changes in Epworth Sleepiness Scale and Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index were not significantly different between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Adaptive servoventilation (ASV) was more reliably effective than CPAP in relieving complex sleep apnea syndrome. While two thirds of participants experienced success with CPAP, approximately 90% experienced success with ASV. Because both methods produced similar symptomatic changes, it is unclear if this polysomnographic effectiveness may translate into other desired outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIALS

Clinicaltrials.Gov NCT00915499.

Complex sleep apnea syndrome

Complex sleep apnea is the term used to describe a form of sleep disordered breathing in which repeated central apneas (>5/hour) persist or emerge when obstructive events are extinguished with positive airway pressure (PAP) and for which there is not a clear cause for the central apneas such as narcotics or systolic heart failure. The driving forces in the pathophysiology are felt to be ventilator instability associated oscillation in PaCO2 arterial partial pressure of Carbon Dioxide, continuous cositive airway pressure (CPAP) related increased CO2 carbon dioxide elimination, and activation of airway and pulmonary stretch receptors triggering these central apneas. The prevalence ranges from 0.56% to 18% with no clear predictive characteristics as compared to simple obstructive sleep apnea. Prognosis is similar to obstructive sleep apnea. The central apnea component in most patients on followup using CPAP therap, has resolved. For those with continued central apneas on simple CPAP therapy, other treatment options include bilevel PAP, adaptive servoventilation, permissive flow limitation and/or drugs.

Innovative treatments for adults with obstructive sleep apnea

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) affects one in five adult males and is associated with significant comorbidity, cognitive impairment, excessive daytime sleepiness, and reduced quality of life. For over 25 years, the primary treatment has been continuous positive airway pressure, which introduces a column of air that serves as a pneumatic splint for the upper airway, preventing the airway collapse that is the physiologic definition of this syndrome. However, issues with patient tolerance and unacceptable levels of treatment adherence motivated the exploration of other potential treatments. With greater understanding of the physiologic mechanisms associated with OSA, novel interventions have emerged in the last 5 years. The purpose of this article is to describe new treatments for OSA and associated complex sleep apnea. New approaches to complex sleep apnea have included adaptive servoventilation. There is increased literature on the contribution of behavioral interventions to improve adherence with continuous positive airway pressure that have proven quite effective. New non-surgical treatments include oral pressure devices, improved mandibular advancement devices, nasal expiratory positive airway pressure, and newer approaches to positional therapy. Recent innovations in surgical interventions have included laser-assisted uvulopalatoplasty, radiofrequency ablation, palatal implants, and electrical stimulation of the upper airway muscles. No drugs have been approved to treat OSA, but potential drug therapies have centered on increasing ventilatory drive, altering the arousal threshold, modifying loop gain (a dimensionless value quantifying the stability of the ventilatory control system), or preventing airway collapse by affecting the surface tension. An emerging approach is the application of cannabinoids to increase upper airway tone.

Complex sleep apnea

OPINION STATEMENT

Complex sleep apnea currently refers to the emergence and persistence of central apneas and hypopneas following the application of positive airway pressure therapy in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. However, this narrow definition is an "outcome" and does not capture the spectrum of pathological activation of the respiratory chemoreflex in sleep apnea. The International Classification of Sleep Disorders - 3rd edition recognizes the phenomenon of Treatment-Related Central Sleep Apnea, but the phenotype is usually evident prior to onset of therapy. The key polysomnographic characteristics of chemoreflex modulated and mediated sleep apnea are nonrapid eye movement (NREM) dominance of respiratory events, short (<30 seconds) or long (>60 seconds) cycle time with a self-similar metronomic timing, and spontaneous improvement during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Thus, the majority of chemoreflex effects go unrecognized due to the bias toward obstructive sleep apnea's current scoring criteria. Any treatment of apparently obstructive sleep apnea, including surgery and oral appliances, can expose chemoreflex-driven instabilities. As both sleep fragmentation and a narrow CO2 reserve or increased loop gain drive the disease, sedatives (to induce longer periods of stable NREM sleep and reduce the destabilizing effects of arousals in NREM sleep) and CO2-based stabilization approaches are logical. Adaptive ventilation reduces mean hyperventilation yet can induce ventilator-patient desynchrony, while enhanced expiratory rebreathing space (EERS, dead space during positive pressure therapy) and CO2 manipulation directly stabilize respiratory control by moving CO2 above the apnea threshold. Carbonic anhydrase inhibition can provide further adjunctive benefits. Novel pharmacological approaches may target mediators of carotid body hypoxic sensitization, such as the balance between gas neurotransmitters. In complex apnea patients, single mode therapy is unlikely to be successful, and the power of multi-modality therapy should be harnessed for optimal outcomes.