Randomized Cross-Over Study Comparing Three Models of Auto-Titrating Positive Airway Pressure Therapy for Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Issued Date
2025-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
22288082
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105003104589
Journal Title
Siriraj Medical Journal
Volume
77
Issue
4
Start Page
298
End Page
304
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Siriraj Medical Journal Vol.77 No.4 (2025) , 298-304
Suggested Citation
Banhiran W., Kormongkolkul S., Keskool P., Chotinaiwattarakul W., Rungmanee S. Randomized Cross-Over Study Comparing Three Models of Auto-Titrating Positive Airway Pressure Therapy for Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Siriraj Medical Journal Vol.77 No.4 (2025) , 298-304. 304. doi:10.33192/SMJ.V77I4.272529 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/109862
Title
Randomized Cross-Over Study Comparing Three Models of Auto-Titrating Positive Airway Pressure Therapy for Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Objective: To compare pressure, average usage time, residual apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), and patient satisfaction across three models of auto-titrating positive airway pressure (APAP) (A, B, and C refers to APAP devices — APEX, Philips, and Hoffrichter, respectively).Materials and Methods: Seventy-five adult patients with an AHI of ≥15 events/h who were willing to use APAP were included and randomly assigned to three groups with different APAP sequences generated by computer randomization. After using each model at home for a week, patients returned to the clinic for data collection and switched to the next model. They completed questionnaires regarding their symptoms before and after the therapeutic session.Results: Data from 62 patients (43 males, 19 females) who completed the research protocol were analyzed. The average 90th–95th percentile pressures for APAP models A, B and C were 7.2 ± 2.2, 9.5 ± 2.6 and 7.4 ± 1.9 cmH2O, respectively (p < 0.001), with an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.52 (95% CI 0.22-0.70). In addition, average usage time and residual AHI differed significantly, with the highest values in model C. However, no significant differences were found in mean pressure or patient satisfaction across the three APAP models.Conclusion: The 90th–95th percentile pressures, average time usage, and residual AHI varied among APAP models, showing only moderate consistency. These findings suggest that careful consideration is required when selecting an APAP model for home use, as it may affect pressure determination and treatment outcomes.