Randomised short-term trial of high-span versus low-span APAP for treating sleep apnoea

Auto-titrating continuous positive airway pressure (APAP) devices were developed to improve treatment efficacy and compliance in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS). Since there are insufficient data on the optimal pressure range setting, we aimed to compare the adherence, efficacy and tolerability of treatment with high-span versus low-span APAP.

Seventy-six newly diagnosed OSAS patients fulfilling the treatment criteria were randomised to receive high-span (HS, range 4-15cmH2O, n = 38) or low-span (LS, range 8-12cmH2O, n = 38) APAP. Patients were assessed at 1 and 3 months.

Median Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) was 13 (IQR, 6-16) and median apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) was 35.9 (IQR, 27.6-56.3). There were no significant differences in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between groups. Overall, no significant differences were found at the first month assessment. After 3 months of therapy, we found again no differences in residual AHI or ESS. However, the group HS proved less adherent than group LS, respectively, with median 87 % (IQR, 60.5-97.5) versus 94 % (IQR, 80.0-98.3) of the nights using ≥4 h (P = 0.014) and mean (±SD) usage 5.7 ± 1.6 versus 6.4 ± 1.2 h/night (P = 0.049). The group HS reported more frequently nasal congestion, excessive oronasal dryness and nocturnal awakenings of at least moderate intensity, the latter with statistical significance (P = 0.005).

Both pressure ranges appear to be equally effective to correct AHI and to improve symptoms. Though, patients with high-span APAP were less compliant to treatment, raising issues about the tolerability of wide pressure range settings of these devices.