Search

Untreated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with excessive daytime sleepiness, decreased quality of life, and cardiovascular disease. Positive airway pressure is the first-line therapy for OSA; however, adherence is difficult. Upper airway stimulation is a Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment of OSA. The objective of this study was to evaluate for a difference in treatment efficacy and adherence of upper airway stimulation therapy for OSA between individuals who are White and non-White using data from the ADHERE registry.ADHERE registry is a multicenter prospective study of real-world experience of upper airway stimulation for treatment of OSA in the United States and Europe. Propensity score matching was used to create a balanced dataset between the White and non-White groups.There were 2,755 participants of the ADHERE registry: 27 were excluded due to not having a race identified, 125 participants identified as non-White, 2,603 identify as White, and 27 did not provide race information. Propensity score matching was used to select 110 participants, with 55 White and 55 non-White for the noninferiority analysis. We did not find a difference in adherence, treatment apnea-hypopnea index, changes in Epworth Sleepiness Scale score, or clinical global impression after intervention score between White and non-White individuals.Our study found that there was no statistically significant difference in adherence or efficacy with upper airway stimulation therapy between White and non-White individuals. However, the percent of non-White people implanted is low, which suggests a need to expand access to this therapy for non-White populations with OSA who cannot tolerate positive airway pressure therapy.Khan M, Stone A, Soose RJ, et al. Does race-ethnicity affect upper airway stimulation adherence and treatment outcome of obstructive sleep apnea?

Background: Traumatic hemorrhage is the leading cause of preventable death, and its effects are often evident within the first 24 hours of hospital admission. We investigated the relationship between prehospital lactate measurement and administration of hospital blood products and life-saving interventions (LSIs) within 24 hours of hospital admission. Methods: We included trauma patients with recorded prehospital venous lactate transported by a single critical care transport service to a Level I trauma center between 2012 and 2019. We abstracted vital signs, mission type, anatomic location of injury, prehospital administration of crystalloid and blood products, and hospital LSIs started within 24 hours of admission. We used logistic regression to determine the association of prehospital lactate and in-hospital administration of blood products in groups with or without hypotensive patients. We investigated the effect of prehospital lactate concentration on secondary outcomes such as LSIs and mortality. Results: We included 2,170 patients transported from the scene or emergency department (ED), of whom 1,821 (84%) were normotensive. The median concentration of prehospital lactate was 2.10 mmol/L for the main population (IQR = 1.40–3.30) and 2.00 mmol/L for the normotensive subgroup (IQR = 1.30–2.90). A higher prehospital lactate concentration was associated with higher odds of needing early hospital blood products in the whole study population (OR = 1.12, (95% CI 1.06–1.20), p < 0.01) and in the normotensive subgroup (OR = 1.13, (95% CI 1.03–1.22), p = 0.01). These positive associations were also observed with the secondary outcome of hospital LSIs, and higher prehospital lactate was also associated with higher odds of mortality (OR = 1.32, (95% CI 1.20–1.45), p < 0.01). Conclusions: Higher concentrations of prehospital lactate were associated with the need for in-hospital blood transfusion within 24 hours of admission. The relationship between lactate and blood transfusion persisted among normotensive patients. Further work is needed to incorporate prehospital lactate into decision support tools for prehospital blood administration.