What is the remaining status of adaptive servo-ventilation? The results of a real-life multicenter study (OTRLASV-study) Adaptive servo-ventilation in real-life conditions

Affiliation auteurs!!!! Error affiliation !!!!
TitreWhat is the remaining status of adaptive servo-ventilation? The results of a real-life multicenter study (OTRLASV-study) Adaptive servo-ventilation in real-life conditions
Type de publicationJournal Article
Year of Publication2019
AuteursJaffuel D, Philippe C, Rabec C, Mallet J-P, Georges M, Redolfi S, Palot A, Suehs CM, Nogue E, Molinari N, Bourdin A
JournalRESPIRATORY RESEARCH
Volume20
Pagination235
Date PublishedOCT 29
Type of ArticleArticle
Mots-clésAdaptive servo-ventilation, Central sleep apnea, chronic heart failure, CPAP, Obstructive sleep apnea, Sleep-disordered breathing, Treatment emergent central sleep apnea
Résumé

Backgrounds: As a consequence of the increased mortality observed in the SERVE-HF study, many questions concerning the safety and rational use of ASV in other indications emerged. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of ASV-treated patients in real-life conditions. Methods: The OTRLASV-study is a prospective, 5-centre study including patients who underwent ASV-treatment for at least 1 year. Patients were consecutively included in the study during the annual visit imposed for ASV-reimbursement renewal. Results: 177/214 patients were analysed (87.57% male) with a median (IQ(25-75)) age of 71 (65-77) years, an ASV-treatment duration of 2.88 (1.76-4.96) years, an ASV-usage of 6.52 (5.13-7.65) hours/day, and 54.8% were previously treated via continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). The median Epworth Scale Score decreased from 10 (6-13.5) to 6 (3-9) (p < 0.001) with ASV-therapy, the apnea-hypopnea-index decreased from 50 (38-62)/h to a residual device index of 1.9 (0.7-3.8)/h (p < 0.001). The majority of patients were classified in a Central-Sleep-Apnea group (CSA; 59.3%), whereas the remaining are divided into an Obstructive-Sleep-Apnea group (OSA; 20.3%) and a Treatment-Emergent-Central-Sleep-Apnea group (TECSA; 20.3%). The Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) was > 45% in 92.7% of patients. Associated comorbidities/etiologies were cardiac in nature for 75.7% of patients (neurological for 12.4%, renal for 4.5%, opioid-treatment for 3.4%). 9.6% had idiopathic central-sleep-apnea. 6.2% of the patients were hospitalized the year preceding the study for cardiological reasons. In the 6 months preceding inclusion, night monitoring (i.e. polygraphy or oximetry during ASV usage) was performed in 34.4% of patients, 25.9% of whom required a subsequent setting change. According to multivariable, logistic regression, the variables that were independently associated with poor adherence (ASV-usage <= 4 h in duration) were TECSA group versus CSA group (p = 0.010), a higher Epworth score (p = 0.019) and lack of a night monitoring in the last 6months (p < 0.05). Conclusions: In real-life conditions, ASV-treatment is often associated with high cardiac comorbidities and high compliance. Future research should assess how regular night monitoring may optimize devices settings and patient management.

DOI10.1186/s12931-019-1221-9