How we measure hypoglossal nerve stimulator outcome matters: titration versus single amplitude efficacy sleep studies.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Thomas M Kaffenberger, Elliott M Sina, Bryce Hambach, Praneet Kaki, Antony Fuleihan, Maurits Boon, Colin Huntley
{"title":"How we measure hypoglossal nerve stimulator outcome matters: titration versus single amplitude efficacy sleep studies.","authors":"Thomas M Kaffenberger, Elliott M Sina, Bryce Hambach, Praneet Kaki, Antony Fuleihan, Maurits Boon, Colin Huntley","doi":"10.5664/jcsm.11328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study objectives: </strong>Hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HGNS) is a common treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Objective assessment of HGNS efficacy measures apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) by multi-amplitude titration polysomnography (tPSG) and/or a single amplitude efficacy sleep study (eHST). Both tests have been used to determine efficacy despite significantly different protocols. This project's aim was to determine differences in objective outcomes in HGNS patients who underwent both tPSG and eHST post-operatively.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 379 consecutive HGNS patients were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion requirements were a pre-operative sleep study, a post-operative tPSG, and then an eHST, which at our institution is a type 3 home study. AHI mean and differences were calculated. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to analyze differences between tPSG and eHST. Sher<sub>15</sub> criteria (post-operative AHI≤15 events/hour and ≥50% reduction from baseline) was calculated and compared by <b>χ<sup>2</sup></b> tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ultimately 61 patients met inclusion criteria with an average pre-operative AHI=33.2. When comparing the subject's tPSG versus eHST, tPSG AHI was significantly lower (AHI=8.8 versus AHI=17.6; respectively, p<0.001). There was also a difference in the percentage of patients that met Sher<sub>15</sub> criteria when using tPSG (80.3%) versus eHST AHI (45.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HGNS patient's postoperative tPSG AHI was significantly lower than their eHST outcome. This work highlights the importance of reporting the type of post-operative study used in evaluating HGNS efficacy and the need for single amplitude, full-night studies to assess HGNS efficacy more accurately.</p>","PeriodicalId":50233,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.11328","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study objectives: Hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HGNS) is a common treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Objective assessment of HGNS efficacy measures apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) by multi-amplitude titration polysomnography (tPSG) and/or a single amplitude efficacy sleep study (eHST). Both tests have been used to determine efficacy despite significantly different protocols. This project's aim was to determine differences in objective outcomes in HGNS patients who underwent both tPSG and eHST post-operatively.

Methods: Data from 379 consecutive HGNS patients were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion requirements were a pre-operative sleep study, a post-operative tPSG, and then an eHST, which at our institution is a type 3 home study. AHI mean and differences were calculated. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to analyze differences between tPSG and eHST. Sher15 criteria (post-operative AHI≤15 events/hour and ≥50% reduction from baseline) was calculated and compared by χ2 tests.

Results: Ultimately 61 patients met inclusion criteria with an average pre-operative AHI=33.2. When comparing the subject's tPSG versus eHST, tPSG AHI was significantly lower (AHI=8.8 versus AHI=17.6; respectively, p<0.001). There was also a difference in the percentage of patients that met Sher15 criteria when using tPSG (80.3%) versus eHST AHI (45.9%).

Conclusions: HGNS patient's postoperative tPSG AHI was significantly lower than their eHST outcome. This work highlights the importance of reporting the type of post-operative study used in evaluating HGNS efficacy and the need for single amplitude, full-night studies to assess HGNS efficacy more accurately.

如何测量舌下神经刺激器的效果很重要:滴定与单一振幅功效睡眠研究。
研究目的:舌下神经刺激(HGNS)是治疗阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)的常用方法。通过多振幅滴定多导睡眠图(tPSG)和/或单振幅疗效睡眠研究(eHST)对呼吸暂停-低通气指数(AHI)进行客观评估。尽管这两种测试的方案明显不同,但都被用于确定疗效。本项目旨在确定术后同时接受 tPSG 和 eHST 的 HGNS 患者的客观疗效差异:对 379 例连续 HGNS 患者的数据进行了回顾性分析。纳入要求包括术前睡眠研究、术后 tPSG 和 eHST,在我们医院,eHST 属于 3 类家庭研究。计算 AHI 平均值和差异。采用 Wilcoxon 秩和检验分析 tPSG 和 eHST 之间的差异。Sher15标准(术后AHI≤15次/小时且较基线下降≥50%)通过χ2检验进行计算和比较:最终 61 名患者符合纳入标准,术前平均 AHI=33.2 。在比较受试者的 tPSG 与 eHST 时,使用 tPSG 的 AHI(80.3%)与使用 eHST 的 AHI(45.9%)相比,tPSG 的 AHI 明显更低(AHI=8.8 与 AHI=17.6;分别为 p15):HGNS患者的术后tPSG AHI明显低于其eHST结果。这项研究强调了在评估 HGNS 疗效时报告术后研究类型的重要性,以及需要进行单振幅、整夜研究以更准确地评估 HGNS 疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
7.00%
发文量
321
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine focuses on clinical sleep medicine. Its emphasis is publication of papers with direct applicability and/or relevance to the clinical practice of sleep medicine. This includes clinical trials, clinical reviews, clinical commentary and debate, medical economic/practice perspectives, case series and novel/interesting case reports. In addition, the journal will publish proceedings from conferences, workshops and symposia sponsored by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine or other organizations related to improving the practice of sleep medicine.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信