Search

Abstract Background Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) involves repeated breathing pauses during sleep due to upper airway obstruction. It causes excessive daytime sleepiness and has other health impacts. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy is effective first line treatment for moderate to severe OSA. Unfortunately, many patients have difficulty tolerating CPAP and pressure intolerance is probably an important contributing factor. Mandibular advancement devices (MAD) are an alternative to CPAP. They are worn in the mouth during sleep to reduce airway obstruction. There is some evidence that, when used in combination with CPAP, MADs improve airway anatomy enough to reduce the CPAP pressure required to treat OSA and that this combination therapy could improve CPAP adherence. Methods Consecutive patients starting on CPAP for moderate to severe OSA will be recruited at a regional NHS sleep service. Patients with high CPAP pressure requirements after initial titration, who satisfy all entry criteria and consent to participate, will undertake a 2-arm randomised crossover trial. The arms will be (i) standalone CPAP and (ii) CPAP + MAD therapy. Each arm will last 12 weeks, including 2 weeks acclimatisation. CPAP machines will be auto-titrating and with facility for data download, so the impact of MAD on CPAP pressure requirements and CPAP adherence can be easily measured. The primary outcome will be CPAP adherence. Secondary outcomes will include measures of OSA severity, patient-reported outcome measures including subjective daytime sleepiness, quality of life, and treatment preference at the trial exit and health service use. Cost-effectiveness analyses will be undertaken. Discussion If the intervention is shown to be effective and cost-effective in improving adherence in this standard CPAP-eligible OSA patient population it would be relatively straightforward to introduce into existing OSA treatment pathways, within the wider NHS and more widely. Both MAD and CPAP are already used by sleep services so their combination would require only minor adjustments to existing clinical pathways. It would be straightforward to disseminate the results of the study through regional, national, and international respiratory meetings. The health economics analysis would provide cost-effectiveness data to inform service planning and clinical guidelines through policy briefing papers, including those by NICE and SIGN. Trial registration PAPMAT was registered with ISRCTN prior to recruitment beginning (ISRCTN Registry 2021): https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN33966032 . Registered on 17th November 2021.

Abstract Background High-flow nasal therapy is a non-invasive form of respiratory support that delivers low-level, flow dependent positive airway pressure. The device can be better tolerated by patients than alternatives such as continuous positive airway pressure. The primary objective is to determine if prophylactic high-flow nasal therapy after tracheal extubation can result in an increase in the number of days alive and at home within the first 90 days after surgery, when compared with standard oxygen therapy. The co-primary objective is to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of high-flow nasal therapy vs standard oxygen therapy at 90 days, from the view-point of the public sector, the health service and patients. Methods This is an adaptive, multicentre, international parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with embedded cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the use of high-flow nasal therapy with control in patients at high risk of respiratory complications following cardiac surgery. Participants will be randomised before tracheal extubation and allocated either high-flow nasal therapy or standard oxygen therapy for a minimum of 16 h immediately post extubation. Participants will be followed up until 90 days after surgery. The total sample size needed to detect a 2-day increase in DAH90 with 90% power with an intention to treat analysis is 850 patients. The adaptive design includes an interim sample size re-estimation which will provide protection against deviations from the original sample size assumptions made from the single-centre pilot study and will allow for a maximum sample size increase to 1152 patients. Discussion Evidence to support routine use of high-flow nasal therapy will inform the development of effective enhanced recovery care bundles. Reducing complications should reduce length of stay and re-admission to hospital and provide an important focus for cost reduction. However; high-quality studies evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of high-flow nasal therapy after cardiothoracic surgery are lacking. Trial registration The study has been registered with ISRCTN ( ISRCTN14092678 , 13/05/2020) Clinicaltrials.gov Registration Pending