PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15157408

Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

Abstract

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a major public health problem in the US that afflicts at least 2% to 4% of middle-aged Americans and incurs an estimated annual cost of 3.4 billion dollars. At Stanford, we utilize a multispecialty team approach combining the expertise of sleep medicine specialists (adult and pediatric), maxillofacial and ear, nose, and throat surgeons, and orthodontists to determine the most appropriate therapy for complicated OSA patients. The major treatment modality for children with OSA is tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy with or without radiofrequency treatment of the nasal inferior turbinate. Children with craniofacial anomalies resulting in maxillary or mandibular insufficiency may benefit from palatal expansion or more invasive maxillary/mandibular surgery. Continuous positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy is used in children with OSA who are not surgical candidates or have failed surgery. As a last resort, tracheotomy may be used in patients with persistent or severe OSA who do not respond to other measures. The cornerstone of treatment in adults utilizes PAP: continuous PAP, bilevel PAP, or auto PAP. Treatment of nasal obstruction, appropriate titration, attention to mask-fit issues, desensitization for claustrophobia, use of heated humidification for nasal dryness and nasal pain with continuous PAP, patient education, regular follow-up, use of compliance software (in selected individuals), and referral to support groups (AWAKE) are measures that can improve patient compliance. Adjunctive treatment modalities include lifestyle/behavioral/pharmacologic measures. Oral appliances can be used in patients with symptomatic mild sleep apnea or upper airway resistance syndrome. Patients who are unwilling or unable to tolerate continuous PAP or who have obvious upper airway obstruction may benefit from surgery. Surgical success depends on appropriate patient selection, the procedure performed, and the experience of the surgeon. Phase I surgeries have a success rate of 50% to 60%, whereas phase II surgeries have a success rate greater than 90%.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Christian Guilleminault, Vivien C. Abad. 2004. Obstructive Sleep Apnea.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-004-0030-7

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗