Journal of Clinical Medicine (Jun 2022)

Switch of Nocturnal Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation (NPPV) in Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA)

  • Pasquale Tondo,
  • Caterina Pronzato,
  • Irene Risi,
  • Nadia D’Artavilla Lupo,
  • Rossella Trentin,
  • Simona Arcovio,
  • Francesco Fanfulla

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113157
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11, no. 11
p. 3157

Abstract

Read online

Background. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is considered the first-line treatment for patients with OSA, but Bilevel-PAP (BiPAP) therapy is a recognized option for noncompliant/unresponsive patients to CPAP. The present study was designed to evaluate the role of ResMed VAuto in the management of two different issues raised because of the Philips recall: the treatment of naïve noncompliant/unresponsive patients to CPAP (Group A) and the switch to VAuto for patients already on treatment with Philips Auto-BiPAP (Group B). Methods. Sixty-four patients who required auto-BiPAP treatment from August to December 2021 were included in the study. The efficacy of each mode of PAP therapy was compared between the two groups of patients. Results. Group A showed a statistically significant improvement in the apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) (7.4 ± 8.5 events·h−1 vs. 15.2 ± 12.1 events·h−1, p −1 vs. 15.2 ± 8.8 events·h−1, p = 0.029) during VAuto in comparison to CPAP, respectively. Conversely, a similar trend was found for patients in Group B for global AHI, but a statistically significant reduction was just found in supine AHI and ODI. In group B, an AHI −1 was found in 89.3% during VAuto in comparison to 82.1% with Philips Auto-BiPAP (p = ns). The levels of IPAPmax and EPAPmin were not statistically different between the two devices (p = 0.69 and p = 0.36, respectively). Conclusion. Bilevel ventilation in VAuto mode is effective in the clinical management of two different issues derived from the Philips recall. The switching between two different auto-BiPAP devices can be performed easily and successfully.

Keywords