CURRENT ISSUE
SEPTEMBER 2014
KINDLE EDITION



SEARCH JOURNAL ARCHIVES


SEARCH PUBMED


MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSIONS


SUBSCRIBE TO SLEEP

CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION


ADVERTISE WITH US


ABOUT SLEEP

ABSTRACT SUPPLEMENTS


ACCEPTED PAPERS
Bookmark and Share         RSS Feed

VOLUME 36, ISSUE 09

2-YEAR FOLLOW-UP OF ORAL APPLIANCE VERSUS CPAP FOR OSAS
Oral Appliance Versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome: A 2-Year Follow-up

http://dx.doi.org/10.5665/sleep.2948

Michiel H. J. Doff, PhD1; Aarnoud Hoekema, PhD1; Peter J. Wijkstra, PhD2; Johannes H. van der Hoeven, PhD3; James J. R. Huddleston Slater, PhD1; Lambert G. M. de Bont, PhD1; Boudewijn Stegenga, PhD1

1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; 2Department of Home Mechanical Ventilation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; 3Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands



  Expand  Table of Contents    
Text size:  

Study Objectives:

Oral appliance therapy has emerged as an important alternative to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in treating patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). In this study we report about the subjective and objective treatment outcome of oral appliance therapy and CPAP in patients with OSAS.

Design:

Cohort study of a previously conducted randomized clinical trial.

Setting:

University Medical Center, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Patients or Participants:

One hundred three patients with OSAS.

Interventions:

CPAP and oral appliance therapy (Thornton Adjustable Positioner type-1, Airway Management, Inc., Dallas, TX, USA)

Measurements and Results:

Objective (polysomnography) and subjective (Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]) parameters were assessed after 1 and 2 years of treatment. Treatment was considered successful when the apneahypopnea index (AHI) was < 5 or showed substantial reduction, defined as reduction in the index of at least 50% from the baseline value to a value of < 20 in a patient without OSAS symptoms while undergoing therapy. Regarding the proportions of successful treatments, no significant difference was found between oral appliance therapy and CPAP in treating mild to severe OSAS in a 2-year follow-up. More patients (not significant) dropped out under oral appliance therapy (47%) compared with CPAP (33%). Both therapies showed substantial improvements in polysomnographic and neurobehavioral outcomes. However, CPAP was more effective in lowering the AHI and showed higher oxyhemoglobin saturation levels compared to oral appliance therapy (P < 0.05).

Conclusions:

Oral appliance therapy should be considered as a viable treatment alternative to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients with mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). In patients with severe OSAS, CPAP remains the treatment of first choice.

Clinical Trial Information:

The original randomized clinical trial, of which this study is a 2-year follow-up, is registered at ISRCTN.org; identifier: ISRCTN18174167; trial name: Management of the obstructive sleep apneahypopnea syndrome: oral appliance versus continuous positive airway pressure therapy; URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN18174167.

Citation:

Doff MHJ; Hoekema A; Wijkstra PJ; van der Hoven JH; Slater JJRH; de Bont LGM; Stegenga B. Oral appliance versus continuous positive airway pressure in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a 2-year follow-up. SLEEP 2013;36(9):1289-1296.

Expand  Table of Contents
View SLEEP 2011 Poster Presentations Online