PLoS ONE (Jan 2023)

The relationship between adherence to continuous positive airway pressure and nasal resistance measured by rhinomanometry in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.

  • Nobuhiro Fujito,
  • Yasuyoshi Ohshima,
  • Satoshi Hokari,
  • Atsunori Takahashi,
  • Asuka Nagai,
  • Ryoko Suzuki,
  • Nobumasa Aoki,
  • Satoshi Watanabe,
  • Toshiyuki Koya,
  • Toshiaki Kikuchi

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283070
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 18, no. 3
p. e0283070

Abstract

Read online

Nasal breathing disorders are associated with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) syndrome and influence the availability of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. However, information is scarce about the impact of nasal resistance assessed by rhinomanometry on CPAP therapy. This study aimed to examine the relationship between CPAP adherence and nasal resistance evaluated by rhinomanometry, and to identify clinical findings that can affect adherence to CPAP therapy for patients with OSA. This study included 260 patients (199 men, 61 women; age 58 [interquartile ranges (IQR) 50-66] years) with a new diagnosis of OSA who underwent rhinomanometry (before, and 1 and 3 months after CPAP introduction) between January 2011 and December 2018. CPAP use was recorded, and the good and poor CPAP adherence groups at the time of patient registration were compared. Furthermore, those with improved and unimproved pre-CPAP high rhinomanometry values were also compared. Their apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) by polysomnography at diagnosis was 45.6 (IQR 33.7-61.6)/hour, but the residual respiratory event (estimated AHI) at enrollment was 2.5 (IQR 1.4-3.9)/hour and the usage time was 318 (IQR 226-397) minutes, indicating that CPAP was effective and adherence was good. CPAP adherence was negatively correlated with nasal resistance (r = -0.188, p = 0.002). The participants were divided into good (n = 153) and poor (n = 107) CPAP adherence groups. In the poor adherence group, rhinomanometry values before CPAP introduction were worse (inspiration, p = 0.003; expiration, p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in patient background when comparing those with improved (n = 16) and unimproved (n = 12) pre-CPAP high rhinomanometry values. However, CPAP usage time was significantly longer in the improved group 1 month (p = 0.002) and 3 months (p = 0.026) after CPAP introduction. The results suggest that nasal resistance evaluated by rhinomanometry is a useful predictor of CPAP adherence, and that improved rhinomanometry values may contribute to extending the duration of CPAP use.