Respiratory research · 2019
What is the remaining status of adaptive servo-ventilation? The results of a real-life multicenter study (OTRLASV-study) : Adaptive servo-ventilation in real-life conditions.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jaffuel Dany, Philippe Carole, Rabec Claudio, Mallet Jean-Pierre, Georges Marjolaine, Redolfi Stefania, Palot Alain, Suehs Carey M, Nogue Erika, Molinari Nicolas, Bourdin Arnaud
Аннотация
BACKGROUNDS: As a consequence of the increased mortality observed in the SERVE-HF study, many questions concerning the safety and rational use of ASV in other indications emerged. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of ASV-treated patients in real-life conditions.
METHODS: The OTRLASV-study is a prospective, 5-centre study including patients who underwent ASV-treatment for at least 1 year. Patients were consecutively included in the study during the annual visit imposed for ASV-reimbursement renewal.
RESULTS: 177/214 patients were analysed (87.57% male) with a median (IQ25-75) age of 71 (65-77) years, an ASV-treatment duration of 2.88 (1.76-4.96) years, an ASV-usage of 6.52 (5.13-7.65) hours/day, and 54.8% were previously treated via continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). The median Epworth Scale Score decreased from 10 (6-13.5) to 6 (3-9) (p < 0.001) with ASV-therapy, the apnea-hypopnea-index decreased from 50 (38-62)/h to a residual device index of 1.9 (0.7-3.8)/h (p < 0.001). The majority of patients were classified in a Central-Sleep-Apnea group (CSA; 59.3%), whereas the remaining are divided into an Obstructive-Sleep-Apnea group (OSA; 20.3%) and a Treatment-Emergent-Central-Sleep-Apnea group (TECSA; 20.3%). The Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) was > 45% in 92.7% of patients. Associated comorbidities/etiologies were cardiac in nature for 75.7% of patients (neurological for 12.4%, renal for 4.5%, opioid-treatment for 3.4%). 9.6% had idiopathic central-sleep-apnea. 6.2% of the patients were hospitalized the year preceding the study for cardiological reasons. In the 6 months preceding inclusion, night monitoring (i.e. polygraphy or oximetry during ASV usage) was performed in 34.4% of patients, 25.9% of whom required a subsequent setting change. According to multivariable, logistic regression, the variables that were independently associated with poor adherence (ASV-usage ≤4 h in duration) were TECSA group versus CSA group (p = 0.010), a higher Epworth score (p = 0.019) and lack of a night monitoring in the last 6 months (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: In real-life conditions, ASV-treatment is often associated with high cardiac comorbidities and high compliance. Future research should assess how regular night monitoring may optimize devices settings and patient management.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The OTRLASV study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02429986 ) on 1 April 2015.
METHODS: The OTRLASV-study is a prospective, 5-centre study including patients who underwent ASV-treatment for at least 1 year. Patients were consecutively included in the study during the annual visit imposed for ASV-reimbursement renewal.
RESULTS: 177/214 patients were analysed (87.57% male) with a median (IQ25-75) age of 71 (65-77) years, an ASV-treatment duration of 2.88 (1.76-4.96) years, an ASV-usage of 6.52 (5.13-7.65) hours/day, and 54.8% were previously treated via continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). The median Epworth Scale Score decreased from 10 (6-13.5) to 6 (3-9) (p < 0.001) with ASV-therapy, the apnea-hypopnea-index decreased from 50 (38-62)/h to a residual device index of 1.9 (0.7-3.8)/h (p < 0.001). The majority of patients were classified in a Central-Sleep-Apnea group (CSA; 59.3%), whereas the remaining are divided into an Obstructive-Sleep-Apnea group (OSA; 20.3%) and a Treatment-Emergent-Central-Sleep-Apnea group (TECSA; 20.3%). The Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) was > 45% in 92.7% of patients. Associated comorbidities/etiologies were cardiac in nature for 75.7% of patients (neurological for 12.4%, renal for 4.5%, opioid-treatment for 3.4%). 9.6% had idiopathic central-sleep-apnea. 6.2% of the patients were hospitalized the year preceding the study for cardiological reasons. In the 6 months preceding inclusion, night monitoring (i.e. polygraphy or oximetry during ASV usage) was performed in 34.4% of patients, 25.9% of whom required a subsequent setting change. According to multivariable, logistic regression, the variables that were independently associated with poor adherence (ASV-usage ≤4 h in duration) were TECSA group versus CSA group (p = 0.010), a higher Epworth score (p = 0.019) and lack of a night monitoring in the last 6 months (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: In real-life conditions, ASV-treatment is often associated with high cardiac comorbidities and high compliance. Future research should assess how regular night monitoring may optimize devices settings and patient management.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The OTRLASV study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02429986 ) on 1 April 2015.