Thorax · 2015
Role of primary care in the follow-up of patients with obstructive sleep apnoea undergoing CPAP treatment: a randomised controlled trial.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Sánchez-de-la-Torre M, Nadal N, Cortijo A, Masa J F, Duran-Cantolla J, Valls J, Serra S, Sánchez-de-la-Torre A, Gracia M, Ferrer F, Lorente I, Urgeles M C, Alonso T, Fuentes A, Armengol F, Lumbierres M, Vázquez-Polo F J, Barbé F, Respiratory Medicine Research Group
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether follow-up of patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) undergoing CPAP treatment could be performed in primary care (PC) settings.
DESIGN: Non-inferiority, randomised, prospective controlled study.
SETTINGS: Sleep unit (SU) at the University Hospital and in 8 PC units in Lleida, Spain.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients with OSA were randomised to be followed up at the SU or PC units over a 6-month period.
MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary outcome was CPAP compliance at 6 months. The secondary outcomes were Epworth Sleep Scale (ESS) score, EuroQoL, patient satisfaction, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure and cost-effectiveness.
RESULTS: We included 101 patients in PC ((mean±SD) apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) 50.8±22.9/h, age 56.2±11 years, 74% male) and 109 in the SU (AHI 51.4±24.4/h, age 55.8±11 years, 77% male)). The CPAP compliance was (mean (95% CI) 4.94 (4.47 to 5.5) vs 5.23 (4.79 to 5.66) h, p=0.18) in PC and SU groups, respectively. In the SU group, there were greater improvements in ESS scores (mean change 1.79, 95% CI +0.05 to +3.53, p=0.04) and patient satisfaction (-1.49, 95% CI -2.22 to -0.76); there was a significant mean difference in BMI between the groups (0.57, 95% CI +0.01 to +1.13, p=0.04). In the PC setting, there was a cost saving of 60%, with similar effectiveness, as well as a decrease in systolic blood pressure (-5.32; 95% CI -10.91 to +0.28, p=0.06).
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with OSA, treatment provided in a PC setting did not result in worse CPAP compliance compared with a specialist model and was shown to be a cost-effective alternative.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical Trials NCT01918449.
DESIGN: Non-inferiority, randomised, prospective controlled study.
SETTINGS: Sleep unit (SU) at the University Hospital and in 8 PC units in Lleida, Spain.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients with OSA were randomised to be followed up at the SU or PC units over a 6-month period.
MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary outcome was CPAP compliance at 6 months. The secondary outcomes were Epworth Sleep Scale (ESS) score, EuroQoL, patient satisfaction, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure and cost-effectiveness.
RESULTS: We included 101 patients in PC ((mean±SD) apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) 50.8±22.9/h, age 56.2±11 years, 74% male) and 109 in the SU (AHI 51.4±24.4/h, age 55.8±11 years, 77% male)). The CPAP compliance was (mean (95% CI) 4.94 (4.47 to 5.5) vs 5.23 (4.79 to 5.66) h, p=0.18) in PC and SU groups, respectively. In the SU group, there were greater improvements in ESS scores (mean change 1.79, 95% CI +0.05 to +3.53, p=0.04) and patient satisfaction (-1.49, 95% CI -2.22 to -0.76); there was a significant mean difference in BMI between the groups (0.57, 95% CI +0.01 to +1.13, p=0.04). In the PC setting, there was a cost saving of 60%, with similar effectiveness, as well as a decrease in systolic blood pressure (-5.32; 95% CI -10.91 to +0.28, p=0.06).
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with OSA, treatment provided in a PC setting did not result in worse CPAP compliance compared with a specialist model and was shown to be a cost-effective alternative.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical Trials NCT01918449.