The two most common therapies used to treat obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are: (1) continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and (2) mandibular advancement splints (MAS), which are the most commonly used oral appliance. These therapies differ in efficacy, cost, comfort, and side effects. Physicians typically select CPAP as the primary treatment since it is the most effective option in reducing the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI).
For patients who consider the benefits worth the negatives and become adherent users of CPAP, this is the most appropriate course of action. However, the remaining 30% to 50% of patients for whom the discomfort, noise, and other negatives outweigh benefits become non-adherent to CPAP. Untreated OSA is associated with increased risks of strokes,1 myocardial infarction,2 motor vehicle crashes,3 reduced work performance, and increased occupational injuries.
4 The economic burden related to untreated OSA is substantial, accounting for billions of dollars per year. In non-adherent CPAP users, a critical clinical question is whether to focus efforts on strategies to improve patients adherence to CPAP, or to instead treat patients with MAS? The study by Doff and colleagues5 in this issue of SLEEP provides important evidence on the relative efficacy of CPAP and MAS to address this question.
In a 2-year randomized trial of 103 patients, they found that in an intent-to-treat analysis for mild to severe OSA patients, there was no statistical difference between the proportion of patients obtaining successful treatment (56% vs 60% in non-severe, and 50% vs 75% in severe for MAS and CPAP, respectively). The study also did not find any statistical difference between the treatments in terms of Epworth Sleepiness Scale, FOSQ-score, and the SF-36.
In fact, the only difference identified between treatments was in the AHI and the lowest oxyhemoglobin saturation. The findings of the trial by Doff et al.5 build on an emerging evidence base. For example, a recent non-concurrent cohort study confirmed this finding, where the authors followed 208 control subjects compared to 254 severe OSA; 177 patients were treated with CPAP and 72 with MAS over a mean period of 5 years.
They found MAS to be an equally effective therapy in reducing the risk of fatal cardiovascular events in patients with severe OSA when compared to CPAP.6 There are various trials showing that despite the presence of residual apneas and the inferior efficacy of MAS compared to CPAP in the reduction of AHI, MAS presents similar health outcomes as presented with surrogates to cardiovascular disease such as blood pres-sure,7,8 endothelial function,9 and microvascular reactivity.
10 They hypothesize that this is because the suboptimal efficacy with MAS therapy is counterbalanced by the superior adherence relative to CPAP, resulting in similar effectiveness of both treatments. Phillips and collaborators compared CPAP to MAS in a large randomized, controlled, crossover trial of moderate to severe OSA patients over a 3-month trial period.11 This study evaluated 24-hour blood pressure measurements and found a non-inferiority of MAS compared to CPAP.
Further, the treatments were found similar in terms of sleepiness and driving simulator performance. Both treatments improved quality of life on a disease-specific questionnaire, although MAS was superior to CPAP for improving four general QOL domains. A limitation of the study by Doff et al. 5 is that only 62 of the 102 original participants completed the 2-year follow-up. A concern is that a greater number of patients withdrew from MAS in comparison to the CPAP arm (47% vs 33%).
However on further scrutiny, it appears this difference was not due to adherence, but mostly due to a subgroup of patients with a higher BMI where MAS treatment is less effective. BMI is a consis-tent predictor of MAS efficacy, to the point where Gagnadoux and collaborators12 describe a BMI greater than 35 kg/m2 as a contraindication for MAS therapy. Another limitation of study5 is lack of an objective assessment to measure adherence with MAS therapy.
Vanderveken and collaborators13 evaluated a recently developed micro-sensor in 51 patients over a period of 3 months, and their results illustrated the safety and feasibility of objective measurement of MAS adherence. If the emerging evidence suggests MAS is an effective alter-native therapy for OSA, the next question is how and when to determine if a patient should receive CPAP or MAS? Conventional wisdom suggests that patients failing to adhere to CPAP after a trial period should be offered MAS.
But how long a trial period, and at what level of adherence? However, this is unknown and somewhat subjective. There is also a concern that non-adherent users will be lost to the system instead of returning for MAS,14 frustrated that their preferences were not initially taken into account. An alternative and increasingly promoted approach in the wider medical literature is to conduct a “preference diagnosis” at the initial decision to determine which option is appropriate for each patient.
15 This requires providing patients with information about benefits and harms for options, determining which of these matter most to the patient, and engaging the patient in conversation and deliberation to identify the option that best matches their informed preferences.16 Patient decision aids, the focus of significant funding in the Affordable Care Act in the US, are the predominant mode for implementing this patient-centered approach to treatment decision-making.
17 While there is a lack of preference studies in the OSA literature, the recent crossover study by Phillips et al. gives some insight into the impact of such an approach in OSA.11 They found that in retrospect, nearly half of patients preferred MAS and importantly, adherence to both CPAP and MAS were higher in patients who preferred the corresponding options (personal communication). The implications of an effective patient-centered approach is a future with significantly more patients adherent to OSA therapy, be it CPAP or MAS, and consequently better health outcomes for OSA patients as a whole.
In summary, the current literature increasingly supports MAS as an effective alternative to CPAP except for extremely and morbidly obese persons. Future studies focused on long-term comparative effectiveness outcomes that include objective measures of adherence as well as the consideration of informed patients' preferences for treatment are required for the comparisons between CPAP and MAS treatment.
Such studies may generate evidence to help the patient and physicians choose the therapy that is most acceptable to improving the patient's health and quality of life.See Also: Appliance Repair Niagara Falls Ny
An appliance is one of the largest investments you are going to at any time make. Appliances are always significant purchases, and therefore are a person in the most crucial aspects of your house. You depend upon appliances for anything from cooking to cleansing, and particularly thinking about the level of funds you may be placing forth for it, it only is sensible that you d desire to be sure you make the most reasonable invest in.
Residence appliances is often a expression and that is employed incredibly commonly nowadays but what does it stand for? House appliances stand for your mechanical and electrical items which might be used in the home for that working of the regular home.
ORAL APPLIANCES VS CPAP – Good news for patients who say “I Hate CPAP” By Ira Shapira, DDS Patients with sleep apnea often are fitted with CPAP as the first line of treatment for sleep apnea and it is a godsend for many. However, a large number of patients do not tolerate CPAP and search for alternatives. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) has changed this outlook forever with its new “Practice Parameters for the Treatment of Snoring and Obstructive Sleep Apnea with Oral Appliances: An Update for 2005”, published in the journal Sleep in February 2006.
The new parameters state that oral appliances are indicated for treatment of mild to moderate OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) in patients who prefer them or do not respond to CPAP. At the same time, the AASM still recommends CPAP as first line treatment for severe OSA before considering oral appliances. A correct diagnosis to determine presence or absence of OSA is mandatory prior to initiation of treatment and the AASM recommends that “Dental management of patients with OAs (oral appliances) should be overseen by practitioners who have undertaken serious training in sleep medicine and/or sleep related breathing disorders”.
The guideline specifically suggests that patients treated with OSA should have follow up with polysomnography. This author also recommends that you seek dentists who are diplomates of the ADSM (Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine). Oral appliances are similar to orthodontic retainers and mouth guards but they are specifically designed to prevent the collapse of the airway during sleep by repositioning and stabilizing the mandible (lower jaw), the jaw muscles, the tongue, soft palate and/or uvula.
The primary type of appliance used is a MAD or Mandibular Advancement Device that brings the lower jaw forward using the upper jaw as an anchor. This also brings the tongue forward and tightens the pharyngeal walls and the soft palate. The tongue-retaining device uses suction to bring the tongue and jaw forward. The advantage of dental appliances in treating apnea is that they are preferred by many patients and have a higher compliance rate, as only 23-45% of patients continue the use of CPAP.
Compliance with oral appliances is much higher and people like sleeping without the hose, mask and compressor. Many patients who do not object to CPAP still prefer oral appliances for travel and feel they allow the return of intimacy to their bedrooms. This author has been using various sleep appliances with patients for over twenty-five years. The TAP appliance is probably the most versatile as it allows titration in the sleep lab while the patient is sleeping.
It is the best appliance for locating the ideal position for the treatment and also for treating severe apnea. Spouses appreciate the “volume control” knob that lets the significant other dial down the snoring while opening their partner’s airway. The Somnomed appliance allows one to easily drink water from a straw as does the modified herbst, telescopic herbst and the SAUD appliances, all of which all variations of the same appliance.
Please remember it is the jaw position and the soft tissuetension that are most important, not the appliance that maintains it. Additional information on appliances can be found at ihatecpap.com. Ira L. Shapira DDS, FICCMO, DAPM, DADSM has been treating sleep disordered breathing with dental appliances for over 25 years. He is a charter member of the Sleep Disorder Dental Society (SDDS) that later became Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine (ADSM).
He was credentialed by the SDDS and is a Dipomate of the ADSM. He was a visiting assistant professor at Rush Medical School in the 1980’s and early 1990’s where he did research on jaw position and sleep apnea and returned in the late 1990’s when he treated patients with oral appliances. He is a Diplomate of the Academy of Pain Management and is a Fellow and former international Regent of the International College of Craniomandibular Orthopedics.
He is the dental editor of Sleep and Health newspaper and consultant to numerous sleep centers on Dental Sleep Medicine. His titration protocols are used throughout Chicagoland and across the country. He practices in Gurnee, Illinois. He can be reached at 1-800-TMJoint or at his website Ihatecpap.com.