• Wolfgang Galetke, Norbert Anduleit, Kerstin Richter, Sven Stieglitz, and Winfried J Randerath.
• Bethanien Hospital Solingen, Clinic for Pneumology and Allergology, Center for Sleep Medicine and Respiratory Care, Institute for Pneumology, University Witten/Herdecke, Solingen, Germany. galetke@klinik-bethanien.de
• Respiration. 2008 Jan 1; 75 (2): 163-9.

BackgroundLong-term compliance is suboptimal in the treatment of the obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS).ObjectivesWe compared the efficacy of and the adherence to automatic continuous positive airway pressure (APAP) and constant continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) based on a night-by-night analysis.MethodsWe performed a randomized, single-blind crossover study in 20 patients with moderate-to-severe OSAS. After diagnostic polysomnography and manual titration, patients were treated for 8 weeks with both constant CPAP and APAP in random order. Compliance and leakage were analyzed night by night using the software LOGSoft of the Magellan iPAP device.ResultsThe reduction in the apnea/hypopnea index (baseline 32.9 +/- 19.1/h, CPAP 4.6 +/- 2.9/h, APAP 5.6 +/- 3.6/h; p < 0.001 compared to baseline) and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (baseline 10.3 +/- 5.7, CPAP 6.6 +/- 4.8, APAP 4.9 +/- 4.6; p < 0.001 compared to baseline) did not significantly differ between the treatment modes. Leakage time and compliance per night were not statistically different (leakage CPAP 31 +/- 57 min, APAP 25 +/- 49 min; compliance CPAP 383 +/- 116 min, APAP 382 +/- 107 min). There was no correlation between leakage and compliance. Thirteen patients (65%) preferred APAP at the end of the study.ConclusionsTreatment efficacy and adherence are similar with CPAP and APAP. There is a trend towards lower leakage with APAP therapy. Patients prefer the automatic mode to fixed pressure.Copyright (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel

14 keywords...

hide…