Dennis Auckley

A multisite randomized trial of portable sleep studies and positive airway pressure autotitration versus laboratory-based polysomnography for the diagnosis and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: The HomePAP study

STUDY OBJECTIVES To test the utility of an integrated clinical pathway for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnosis and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment using portable monitoring devices. DESIGN Randomized, open-label, parallel group, unblinded, multicenter clinical trial comparing home-based, unattended portable monitoring for diagnosis and autotitrating CPAP (autoPAP) compared with in-laboratory polysomnography (PSG) and CPAP titration. SETTING Seven American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) accredited sleep centers. PARTICIPANTS Consecutive new referrals, age 18 yr or older with high probability of moderate to severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] ≥ 15) identified by clinical algorithm and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score ≥ 12. INTERVENTIONS Home-based level 3 testing followed by 1 wk of autoPAP with a fixed pressure CPAP prescription based on the 90% pressure from autotitration of PAP therapy (autoPAP) device (HOME) compared with attended, in-laboratory studies (LAB). MEASUREMENTS CPAP acceptance, time to treatment, adherence at 1 and 3 mo; changes in ESS, and functional outcomes. RESULTS Of 373 participants, approximately one-half in each study arm remained eligible (AHI ≥ 15) to continue in the study. At 3 mo, PAP usage (nightly time at pressure) was 1 hr greater: 4.7 ± 2.1 hr (HOME) compared with 3.7 ± 2.4 hr (LAB). Adherence (percentage of night used ≥ 4 hr) was 12.6% higher: 62.8 ± 29.2% compared with 49.4 ± 36.1% in the HOME versus LAB. Acceptance of PAP therapy, titration pressures, effective titrations, time to treatment, and ESS score change did not differ between arms. CONCLUSIONS A home-based strategy for diagnosis and treatment compared with in-laboratory PSG was not inferior in terms of acceptance, adherence, time to treatment, and functional improvements. TRIAL REGISTRATION http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT: 00642486.

Maternal and neonatal morbidities associated with obstructive sleep apnea complicating pregnancy

OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to estimate the maternal and neonatal morbidities associated with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN Women delivering between 2000-2008 with confirmed OSA in an academic center were included. Normal-weight and obese controls were randomly selected at a 2:1 ratio. Maternal and neonatal morbidities were compared between the groups. Multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate maternal morbidity and preterm birth (PTB). RESULTS The analysis included 57 pregnancies complicated by OSA. Compared with normal-weight (n = 114) controls, OSA patients had more preeclampsia (PET) (19.3% vs 7.0%; P = .02) and PTB (29.8% vs 12.3%; P = .007). Controlling for comorbid conditions, OSA was associated with an increased risk of PTB (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-6.6), mostly secondary to PET (63%). Cesarean delivery (OR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.9-22.1) and OSA were associated with maternal morbidity (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.5-13.7). CONCLUSION Pregnancies complicated by OSA are at increased risk for preeclampsia, medical complications, and indicated PTB.

Perinatal outcomes associated with obstructive sleep apnea in obese pregnant women

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the associations between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and maternal and neonatal morbidities in a cohort of obese gravid women. METHODS: Participants were enrolled in a prospective observational study designed to screen for OSA and describe the possible risk factors for and outcomes of OSA among obese (body mass index [BMI, calculated as weight (kg)/[height (m)]2] 30 or higher) pregnant women. Women underwent an overnight sleep study using a portable home monitor. Studies were manually scored by a central masked sleep reading center using American Academy of Sleep Medicine diagnostic criteria. An apnea hypopnea index of 5 or more was considered diagnostic of OSA. Perinatal outcomes were compared between women with and without OSA. RESULTS: Among 175 women, OSA prevalence was 15.4% (13 mild, 9 moderate, 5 severe). Compared with no OSA (apnea hypopnea index less than 5), the OSA group had a higher BMI (46.8±12.2 compared with 38.1±7.5; P=.002) and more chronic hypertension (55.6% compared with 32.4%, P=.02). Maternal complications included maternal death (n=1, amniotic fluid embolus [no OSA group]) and cardiac arrest (n=1, intraoperative at cesarean delivery [OSA group]). One previable birth and two stillbirths occurred in the no OSA group. Among live births, OSA was associated with more frequent cesarean delivery (65.4% compared with 32.8%; P=.003), preeclampsia (42.3% compared with 16.9%; P=.005), and neonatal intensive care unit admission (46.1% compared with 17.8%; P=.002). After controlling for BMI, maternal age, and diabetes, OSA (odds ratio [OR] 3.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1–11.3), previous preeclampsia (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.09–7.19), and hypertension (OR 4.25, 95% CI 1.67–10.77) were associated with development of preeclampsia. CONCLUSION: Obstructive sleep apnea among obese pregnant women is associated with more frequent preeclampsia, neonatal intensive care unit admissions, and cesarean delivery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II

Validation of the STOP-Bang Questionnaire as a Screening Tool for Obstructive Sleep Apnea among Different Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Diagnosing obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is clinically relevant because untreated OSA has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The STOP-Bang questionnaire is a validated screening tool for OSA. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of STOP-Bang for screening patients suspected of having OSA and to predict its accuracy in determining the severity of OSA in the different populations. Methods A search of the literature databases was performed. Inclusion criteria were: 1) Studies that used STOP-Bang questionnaire as a screening tool for OSA in adult subjects (>18 years); 2) The accuracy of the STOP-Bang questionnaire was validated by polysomnography—the gold standard for diagnosing OSA; 3) OSA was clearly defined as apnea/hypopnea index (AHI) or respiratory disturbance index (RDI) ≥ 5; 4) Publications in the English language. The quality of the studies were explicitly described and coded according to the Cochrane Methods group on the screening and diagnostic tests. Results Seventeen studies including 9,206 patients met criteria for the systematic review. In the sleep clinic population, the sensitivity was 90%, 94% and 96% to detect any OSA (AHI ≥ 5), moderate-to-severe OSA (AHI ≥15), and severe OSA (AHI ≥30) respectively. The corresponding NPV was 46%, 75% and 90%. A similar trend was found in the surgical population. In the sleep clinic population, the probability of severe OSA with a STOP-Bang score of 3 was 25%. With a stepwise increase of the STOP-Bang score to 4, 5, 6 and 7/8, the probability rose proportionally to 35%, 45%, 55% and 75%, respectively. In the surgical population, the probability of severe OSA with a STOP-Bang score of 3 was 15%. With a stepwise increase of the STOP-Bang score to 4, 5, 6 and 7/8, the probability increased to 25%, 35%, 45% and 65%, respectively. Conclusion This meta-analysis confirms the high performance of the STOP-Bang questionnaire in the sleep clinic and surgical population for screening of OSA. The higher the STOP-Bang score, the greater is the probability of moderate-to-severe OSA.

Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guidelines on Preoperative Screening and Assessment of Adult Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea

The purpose of the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine guideline on preoperative screening and assessment of adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is to present recommendations based on the available clinical evidence on the topic where possible. As very few well-performed randomized studies in this field of perioperative care are available, most of the recommendations were developed by experts in the field through consensus processes involving utilization of evidence grading to indicate the level of evidence upon which recommendations were based. This guideline may not be appropriate for all clinical situations and all patients. The decision whether to follow these recommendations must be made by a responsible physician on an individual basis. Protocols should be developed by individual institutions taking into account the patients’ conditions, extent of interventions and available resources. This practice guideline is not intended to define standards of care or represent absolute requirements for patient care. The adherence to these guidelines cannot in any way guarantee successful outcomes and is rather meant to help individuals and institutions formulate plans to better deal with the challenges posed by perioperative patients with OSA. These recommendations reflect the current state of knowledge and its interpretation by a group of experts in the field at the time of publication. While these guidelines will be periodically updated, new information that becomes available between updates should be taken into account. Deviations in practice from guidelines may be justifiable and such deviations should not be interpreted as a basis for claims of negligence.

Does Obstructive Sleep Apnea Influence Perioperative Outcome? A Qualitative Systematic Review for the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Task Force on Preoperative Preparation of Patients with Sleep-Disordered Breathing.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a commonly encountered problem in the perioperative setting even though many patients remain undiagnosed at the time of surgery. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate whether the diagnosis of OSA has an impact on postoperative outcomes. We performed a systematic review of studies published in PubMed-MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, and other nonindexed citations, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Health Technology Assessment up to November 2014. Studies of adult patients with a diagnosis of OSA or high risk thereof, published in the English language, undergoing surgery or procedures under anesthesia care, and reporting ≥1 postoperative outcome were included. Overall, the included studies reported on 413,304 OSA and 8,556,279 control patients. The majority reported worse outcomes for a number of events, including pulmonary and combined complications, among patients with OSA versus the reference group. The association between OSA and in-hospital mortality varied among studies; 9 studies showed no impact of OSA on mortality, 3 studies suggested a decrease in mortality, and 1 study reported increased mortality. In summary, the majority of studies suggest that the presence of OSA is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications.

Perioperative Complications in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients Undergoing Surgery: A Review of the Legal Literature.

BACKGROUND:Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common in patients undergoing surgery. OSA, known or suspected, has been associated with significant perioperative adverse events, including severe neurologic injury and death. This study was undertaken to assess the legal consequences associated with poor outcomes related to OSA in the perioperative setting. METHODS:A retrospective review of the legal literature was performed by searching 3 primary legal databases between the years 1991 and 2010 for cases involving adults with known or suspected OSA who underwent a surgical procedure associated with an adverse perioperative outcome. OSA had to be directly implicated in the outcome, and surgical mishaps (i.e., uncontrolled bleeding) were excluded. The adverse perioperative outcome had to result in a lawsuit that was then adjudicated in a court of law with a final decision rendered. Data were abstracted from each case regarding patient demographics, type of surgery, type and location of adverse event, associated anesthetic and opioid use, and legal outcome. RESULTS:Twenty-four cases met the inclusion criteria. The majority (83%) occurred in or after 2007. Patients were young (average age, 41.7 years), male (63%), and had a known diagnosis of OSA (96%). Ninety-two percent of cases were elective with 33.3% considered general procedures, 37.5% were ears, nose and throat procedures for the treatment of OSA, and 29.1% were considered miscellaneous interventions. Complications occurred intraoperatively (21%), in the postanesthesia care unit (33%), and on the surgical floors (46%). The most common complications were respiratory arrest in an unmonitored setting and difficulty in airway management. Immediate adverse outcomes included death (45.6%), anoxic brain injury (45.6%), and upper airway complications (8%). Overall, 71% of the patients died, with 6 of the 11 who suffered anoxic brain injury dying at an average of 113 days later. The use of opioids and general anesthetics was believed to play a role in 38% and 58% of cases, respectively. Verdicts favored the plaintiffs in 58% of cases and the defendants in 42%. In cases favoring the plaintiff, the average financial penalty was

Impact of Upper Airway Surgery on CPAP Compliance in Difficult-to-Manage Obstructive Sleep Apnea

2.5 million (±

Is the relationship between race and continuous positive airway pressure adherence mediated by sleep duration

2.3 million; range,

Avoiding adverse outcomes in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA): development and implementation of a perioperative OSA protocol

650,000––