Ron Oliven

Effect of genioglossus contraction on pharyngeal lumen and airflow in sleep apnoea patients

The purpose of the present study was to quantify the mechanical effect of genioglossus stimulation on flow mechanics and pharyngeal cross-sectional area in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea, and to identify variables that determine the magnitude of the respiratory effect of tongue protrusion. The pressure/flow and pressure/cross-sectional area relationships of the velo- and oropharynx were assessed in spontaneously breathing propofol-anaesthetised subjects before and during genioglossus stimulation. Genioglossus contraction decreased the critical pressure significantly from 1.2±3.3 to -0.7±3.8 cmH2O, with individual decreases ranging -0.6–5.9 cmH2O. Pharyngeal compliance was not affected by genioglossus contraction. The pharyngeal response to genioglossus stimulation was related to the magnitude of advancement of the posterior side of the tongue, but not to the severity of sleep apnoea, critical pressure, compliance or the shape and other characteristics of the velopharynx. Genioglossus contraction enlarges both the velo- and the oropharynx and lowers the critical pressure without affecting pharyngeal stiffness. The response to genioglossus stimulation depends upon the magnitude of tongue protrusion achieved rather than on inherent characteristics of the patient and their airway.

Interacting effects of genioglossus stimulation and mandibular advancement in sleep apnea

Both mandibular advancement (MA) and stimulation of the genioglossus (GG) have been shown to improve upper airway patency, but neither one achieves the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment. In the present study we assessed the combined effect of MA and GG stimulation on the relaxed pharynx in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). We evaluated responses of upper airway pressure-flow relationships and endoscopically determined pharyngeal cross-sectional area to MA and electrical stimulation of the GG in 14 propofol-anesthetized OSA patients. Measurements were undertaken at multiple levels of CPAP, enabling calculation of the critical closing pressure (Pcrit), upstream resistance (Rus), and pharyngeal compliance. GG stimulation, MA, and the combination of both shifted the pressure:flow relationships toward higher flow levels, resulting in progressively lower Pcrit (from baseline of 2.9 +/- 2.2 to 0.9 +/- 2.5, -1.4 +/- 2.9, and -4.2 +/- 3.3 cmH(2)O, respectively), without significant change in Rus. DeltaPcrit during GG stimulation was significantly larger during MA than under baseline conditions (-2.8 +/- 1.4 vs. -2.0 +/- 1.4 cmH(2)O, P = 0.011). Combining the effect of GG stimulation with MA lowered Pcrit below 0 in all patients and restored pharyngeal patency to a level that enabled flow above the hypopnea level in 10/14 of the patients. Velopharyngeal compliance was not affected by either manipulation. We conclude that the combined effect of MA and GG stimulation is additive and may act in synergy, preventing substantial flow limitation of the relaxed pharynx in most OSA patients.

Parameters affecting pharyngeal response to genioglossus stimulation in sleep apnoea

Chronic stimulation of the hypoglossus nerve may provide a new treatment modality for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). In previous studies we observed large differences in response to stimulation of the genioglossus (GG). We hypothesised that both individual patient characteristics and the area of the GG stimulated are responsible for these differences. In the present study, we compared the response to GG electrical stimulation at the anterior area (GGa-ES), which activates the whole GG and the posterior area (GGp-ES), which activates preferentially the longitudinal fibres. Studies were performed in 14 propofol-sedated OSA patients. The parameters evaluated included cephalometry, pressure–flow relationship and pharyngeal shape and compliance assessed by pharyngoscopy. Compared with GGa-ES, GGp-ES resulted in significantly larger decreases in the critical value of end-expiratory pressure (Pcrit) (from 3.8±2.2 to 2.9±3.3 and -2.0±3.9 cmH2O, respectively (p<0.001)). Both tongue size and velopharyngeal shape (anteroposterior to lateral ratio) correlated significantly with the decrease in Pcrit during GGp-ES (R = 0.53 and -0.66, respectively; p<0.05). In the patients with the larger tongue size (n = 7), the decrease in Pcrit reached 8.0±2.2 cmH2O during GGp-ES. We conclude that directing stimulation to longitudinal fibres of the GG improves the flow-mechanical effect. In addition, patients with large tongues and narrow pharynx tend to respond better to GGp-ES.

Dissociation of electromyogram and mechanical response in sleep apnoea during propofol anaesthesia

Pharyngeal collapsibility during sleep is believed to increase due to a decline in dilator muscle activity. However, genioglossus electromyogram (EMG) often increases during apnoeas and hypopnoeas, often without mechanical effect. 17 patients with obstructive sleep apnoea were anaesthetised and evaluated from termination of propofol administration to awakening. Genioglossus EMG, flow and pharyngeal area (pharyngoscopy) were monitored. Prolonged hypopnoeas enabled evaluation of the relationships between genioglossus EMG and mechanical events, before and after awakening. Additional dilator muscle EMGs were recorded and compared to the genioglossus. Electrical stimulation of the genioglossus was used to evaluate possible mechanical dysfunction. Prolonged hypopnoeas during inspiration before arousal triggered an increase in genioglossus EMG, reaching mean±sd 62.2±32.7% of maximum. This augmented activity failed to increase flow and pharyngeal area. Awakening resulted in fast pharyngeal enlargement and restoration of unobstructed flow, with marked reduction in genioglossus EMG. Electrical stimulation of the genioglossus under propofol anaesthesia increased the inspiratory pharyngeal area (from 25.1±28 to 66.3±75.5 mm2; p<0.01) and flow (from 11.5±6.5 to 18.6±9.2 L·min−1; p<0.001), indicating adequate mechanical response. All additional dilators increased their inspiratory activity during hypopnoeas. During propofol anaesthesia, pharyngeal occlusion persists despite large increases in genioglossus EMG, in the presence of a preserved mechanical response to electrical stimulation.

Alteration in upper airway dilator muscle coactivation during sleep: Comparison of patients with obstructive sleep apnea and healthy subjects

In patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), substantial increases in genioglossus (GG) activity during hypopneas/apneas usually fail to restore normal airflow. We have previously suggested that sleep-induced alteration in tongue muscle coordination may explain this finding, as retractor muscle coactivation was reduced during sleep compared with wakefulness. The present study was undertaken to evaluate whether these alterations in dilator muscle activation during sleep play a role in the pathogenesis of OSA and whether coactivation of additional peripharyngeal muscles (non-GG muscles: styloglossus, geniohyoid, sternohyoid, and sternocleidomastoid) is also impaired during sleep. We compared GG and non-GG muscle electromyographic (EMG) activity in 8 patients with OSA and 12 healthy subjects during wakefulness while breathing through inspiratory resistors with the activity observed during sleep toward the end of flow limitation, before arousal, at equivalent esophageal pressures. During wakefulness, resistive breathing triggered increases in both GG and non-GG muscle activity. During sleep, flow limitation was associated with increases in GG-EMG that reached, on average, >2-fold the level observed while awake. In contrast, EMGs of the non-GG muscles, recorded simultaneously, reached, on average, only ~2/3 the wakefulness level. We conclude that during sleep GG activity may increase to levels that substantially exceed those sufficient to prevent pharyngeal collapse during wakefulness, whereas other peripharyngeal muscles do not coactivate during sleep in both patients with OSA and healthy subjects. We speculate that upper airway muscle dyssynchrony during sleep may explain why GG-EMG activation fails to alleviate flow limitation and stabilize airway patency during sleep. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Pharyngeal obstruction during sleep may trigger genioglossus activity to levels substantially exceeding those observed during wakefulness, without ameliorating flow limitation. In contrast, other peripharyngeal muscles exhibit a much lower activity during sleep in both patients with obstructive sleep apnea and healthy subjects. Coordinated muscular synergy stabilizes the pharynx despite relatively low activity while awake, yet even higher genioglossal activity allows the pharynx to obstruct when simultaneous activity of other dilator muscles is inadequate during sleep.

Peri-pharyngeal muscle response to inspiratory loading: comparison of patients with OSA and healthy subjects

Upper airway patency to airflow and the occurrence of obstructive sleep apnea involve a complex interplay between pharyngeal anatomy and synergic co‐activation of peri‐pharyngeal muscles. In previous studies we observed large differences in the response to sleep‐associated flow limitation between the genioglossus and other (non‐GG) peri‐pharyngeal muscles. We hypothesized that similar differences are present also during wakefulness. In the present study we compared the response to inspiratory loading of the genioglossus electromyogram and four other peri‐pharyngeal muscles. Studies were performed in eight obstructive sleep apnea patients, seven age‐matched healthy subjects and five additional younger subjects. Electromyogram activity was evaluated over a range of negative oesophageal pressures and expressed as % of maximal electromyograms. In healthy subjects, the slope response to inspiratory loading (electromyogram/pressures) was similar for the genioglossus and non‐GG muscles studied. However, the electromyogram responses were significantly higher in the young subjects compared with older subjects. In contrast, in the obstructive sleep apnea patients, the electromyogram/pressure response of the non‐GG muscles was similar to that of the age‐matched healthy subjects, whereas the slope response of the genioglossus electromyogram was significantly higher than non‐GG muscles. We conclude that both age and the presence of obstructive sleep apnea affect the response of peri‐pharyngeal muscles to inspiratory loading. In patients with obstructive sleep apnea the genioglossus seems to compensate for mechanical disadvantages, but non‐GG muscles apparently are not included in this neuromuscular compensatory mechanism. Our current and previous findings suggest that attempts to improve obstructive sleep apnea with myofunctional therapy should put added emphasis on the training of non‐GG muscles.