ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Recently, we noticed a considerable development in alleviating problems related to positive airway pressure (PAP) masks. In this study, we report on the initial PAP mask acceptance rates and the effects of mask switching on mask-related symptoms. METHODS: We prospectively collected all cases of mask switching in our sleep unit for a period of 14 months. At the time of the study, we used ResMed™ CPAP devices and masks. Mask switching was defined as replacing a mask used for at least 1 day with another type of mask. Changing to a different size but keeping the same type of mask did not count as mask switching. Switching outcomes were considered failed if the initial problem persisted or reappeared during the year that followed switching. RESULTS: Our patient pool was 2768. We recorded 343 cases of mask switching among 267 patients. Of the 566 patients who began new PAP therapy, 108 (39 women) had switched masks, yielding an initial mask acceptance rate of 81 %. The reason for switching was poor-fit/uncomfortable mask in 39 %, leak-related in 30 %, outdated model in 25 %, and nasal stuffiness in 6 % of cases; mask switching resolved these problems in 61 %. Mask switching occurred significantly (p = 0.037) more often in women and in new PAP users. The odds ratio for abandoning PAP therapy within 1 year after mask switching was 7.2 times higher (interval 4.7-11.1) than not switching masks. CONCLUSION: The initial PAP mask acceptance rate was high. Patients who switched their masks are at greater risk for abandoning PAP therapy.
Subject(s)
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/instrumentation , Masks , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive/therapy , Adult , Aged , Equipment Design , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Patient Dropouts , Polysomnography , Prospective Studies , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the care receiver's satisfaction with the continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) interfaces. METHODS: A questionnaire with visual analog scales was sent to all our CPAP patients (0 = absolutely unsatisfied, 100 = very satisfied). From the ResMed ResScan program, we obtained the CPAP daily use and air leak values. RESULTS: We received 730 answers (70 % of participants); females comprised 22 %. A total of 391 patients had ResMed interfaces, 227 had Respironics, 87 had Fisher & Paykel (F&P), and 25 patients had other interfaces. Interfaces were nasal for 79 %, nasal pillows for 9 %, oronasal for 9 %, and unidentified for 3 % of cases. The mean ± SD satisfaction rate was 68 ± 25. No statistically significant differences were found regarding the type or brand of interface, previous interface experience, or the age or gender of the patient. Users of ResMed interfaces had significantly (p < 0.01) fewer cases of disturbing leaks than did users of Respironics or F&P interfaces (60 vs. 70 and 72 %, respectively). The ResMed Ultra Mirage interface had the fewest cases of disturbing leaks. Values for the measured median leaks were a mean of 5.9 ± 7.2 l/min, and those for the maximum leaks were 39.3 ± 22.2 l/min with no differences between brands. The users of F&P interfaces experienced significantly (p < 0.01) more comfort and used the CPAP device significantly (p < 0.007) more than did users of ResMed or Respironics interfaces (88 % of cases vs. 65 and 57 % and 6.2 ± 2.6 vs. 5.3 ± 2.8 or 5.8 ± 2.8 h/day, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients consider the use of the CPAP interface disturbing even though the satisfaction rate is good with no differences between brands.
