Search

IntroductionObstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common disorder with major neurocognitive and cardiovascular sequelae. The treatment of symptomatic patients with mild OSA remains controversial given that adherence to positive airway pressure (PAP) has historically been suboptimal. With this notion in mind, we assessed a daily transoral neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) device for individuals with mild OSA.MethodsThe sample represents a subset of participants with a baseline AHI 5-14.9 events/hour, drawn from a parent study which also included participants with primary snoring. Outcome measures for the current study included changes in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and snoring levels before and after use of the NMES.  RESULTS: Among 65 participants (68% men) with median age of 49 years (range 24 to 79) and median BMI of 27.7 kg/m2 (range 20 to 34), the NMES device was used daily for 6 weeks. We observed a significant improvement in the AHI from 10.2 to 6.8 events/hour among all participants and from 10.4 to 5.0 events/h among responders. Statistically significant improvements in the ESS, PSQI, objectively measured snoring, and bed partner-reported snoring were observed. Adherence among all participants was 85%.DiscussionThis NMES device has the benefit of being a treatment modality of daytime therapy which confers a high level of tolerability and patient acceptance. It alleviates the need for an in situ device during sleep and leads to improvements in OSA severity, snoring, and subjective sleep metrics, potentially crucial in mild OSA. Further studies are needed to define which individuals may benefit most from the device across the wider spectrum of OSA severity and assess long-term therapeutic outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03829956.

Background/Objectives: Exploring and establishing a consensus on palatal surgery, the outcomes and follow-up after the palatal surgery, the complications of palatal surgery, and the post-operative management after palatal surgery for snoring and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) among sleep surgeons is critical in the surgical management of patients with such conditions. Methods: Using the Delphi method, a set of statements was developed based on the literature and circulated among a panel of eight European experts. Responses included agreeing and disagreeing with each statement, and the comments were used to assess the level of consensus and to develop a revised version. The new version with the level of consensus and anonymized comments was sent to each panel member as the second round. This was repeated over a total of five rounds. Results: The final set included a total of 111 statements, 27 of which were stand-alone questions and 21 of which contained 84 sub-statements. Of the 34 statements regarding palatal surgery, consensus was achieved among all eight, seven, and six panelists for 50%, 35.3%, and 5.9% of the questions, respectively. Of the 43 statements regarding the outcomes and follow-up after the palatal surgery, consensus was achieved among all eight, seven, and six panelists for 53.5%, 23.3%, and 4.7% of the questions, respectively. Of the 24 statements regarding complications after the palatal surgery, consensus was achieved among all eight, seven, and six panelists for 91.7%, 0%, and 4.2% of the questions, respectively. Of the 10 statements regarding post-operative management after palatal surgery, consensus was achieved among all eight, seven, and six panelists for 10%, 30%, and 30% of the papers, respectively. Conclusions: This consensus provides an overview of the work of European sleep surgeons to develop a set of statements on palatal surgery for the treatment of snoring and OSA, the outcomes and follow-up, the complications, and the post-operative management of palatal surgery. We believe that this will be helpful in everyday practice. It also indicates key areas for further studies in sleep surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Background: Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy (DISE) enables the three-dimensional and dynamic visualization of the upper airway (UA) during sleep, which is useful in selecting the best treatment option for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients, particularly for surgical procedures. Despite international consensus statements or position papers, a universally accepted DISE methodology and classification system remain a controversial open question. (2) Methods: A review of the English scientific literature on DISE related to endoscopic classification systems and surgical outcome predictors (3) Results: Of the 105 articles, 47 were included in the analysis based on their content's relevance to the searched keywords. (4) Conclusions: A final report and scoring classification system is not universally accepted; the most internationally applied endoscopic classification system during DISE does not cover all patterns of events that occur simultaneously during the endoscopic examination, highlighting that several configurations of collapse and obstruction at different UA levels could be observed during DISE, which should be described in detail if DISE has to be considered in the decision-making process for the UA surgical treatment in OSA patients and if DISE has to have a role as a predictive factor for surgical outcomes analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]