Limits...
Oral appliance treatment in moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea patients non-adherent to CPAP.

Gjerde K, Lehmann S, Berge ME, Johansson AK, Johansson A - J Oral Rehabil (2015)

Bottom Line: A successful OA treatment outcome was based on polygraphy at the follow-up and divided into three groups: 1 = AHI <5; 2 = 5 ≤ AHI <10 and >50% reduction in baseline AHI; and 3. >50% reduction in baseline AHI.If there was a ≤ 50% reduction in baseline AHI at the follow-up, the treatment was considered as a failure.There was no significant difference in success rates between patients in the moderate and severe categories (69% and 77%, respectively).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Thoracic Medicine, Center for Sleep Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Comparison between moderate (n = 74) and severe (n = 32) groups according to success criteria applied after treatment with oral appliance at follow‐up.
© Copyright Policy - creativeCommonsBy-nc
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4834725&req=5

joor12376-fig-0001: Comparison between moderate (n = 74) and severe (n = 32) groups according to success criteria applied after treatment with oral appliance at follow‐up.

Mentions: The treatment success rate with the criterion 3 applied (>50% reduction in AHI) was 75% for the whole group (79/106 patients), comprising 77% and 69% of the moderate and severe groups, respectively. AHI < 5 (criterion 1) was recorded in 43% of patients in the moderate and 25% in the severe group, while it was 38% for both groups together. The combined figures for criteria 1 and 2 (5 ≤ AHI < 10 and more than 50% reduction in baseline AHI) were 70% and 50%, for the moderate and severe groups respectively. There was no significant difference in treatment outcome between the moderate and severe groups using the above‐mentioned success criteria (Fig. 1). AHI at baseline and at follow‐up after OA treatment in the successful group (criterion 1, 2 or 3, n = 79) and in the failure group (≤ 50% reduction in baseline AHI at follow‐up, n = 25) for each participant is shown in Fig. 2a and b.


Oral appliance treatment in moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea patients non-adherent to CPAP.

Gjerde K, Lehmann S, Berge ME, Johansson AK, Johansson A - J Oral Rehabil (2015)

Comparison between moderate (n = 74) and severe (n = 32) groups according to success criteria applied after treatment with oral appliance at follow‐up.
© Copyright Policy - creativeCommonsBy-nc
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4834725&req=5

joor12376-fig-0001: Comparison between moderate (n = 74) and severe (n = 32) groups according to success criteria applied after treatment with oral appliance at follow‐up.
Mentions: The treatment success rate with the criterion 3 applied (>50% reduction in AHI) was 75% for the whole group (79/106 patients), comprising 77% and 69% of the moderate and severe groups, respectively. AHI < 5 (criterion 1) was recorded in 43% of patients in the moderate and 25% in the severe group, while it was 38% for both groups together. The combined figures for criteria 1 and 2 (5 ≤ AHI < 10 and more than 50% reduction in baseline AHI) were 70% and 50%, for the moderate and severe groups respectively. There was no significant difference in treatment outcome between the moderate and severe groups using the above‐mentioned success criteria (Fig. 1). AHI at baseline and at follow‐up after OA treatment in the successful group (criterion 1, 2 or 3, n = 79) and in the failure group (≤ 50% reduction in baseline AHI at follow‐up, n = 25) for each participant is shown in Fig. 2a and b.

Bottom Line: A successful OA treatment outcome was based on polygraphy at the follow-up and divided into three groups: 1 = AHI <5; 2 = 5 ≤ AHI <10 and >50% reduction in baseline AHI; and 3. >50% reduction in baseline AHI.If there was a ≤ 50% reduction in baseline AHI at the follow-up, the treatment was considered as a failure.There was no significant difference in success rates between patients in the moderate and severe categories (69% and 77%, respectively).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Thoracic Medicine, Center for Sleep Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus