Compliance in sleep apnoea therapy: influence of home care support and pressure mode
Open accessAbstract
Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is an effective treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea syndrom (OSAS) but therapy adherence is often low. The hypothesis that CPAP-adherence and clinical outcomes can be improved by either using an autoadjusting-CPAP (APAP) device or an intensive support was tested. A controlled parallel group study was performed with 100 newly diagnosed OSAS patients, randomised into 4 groups (n = 25 each): standard or intensive support plus either APAP or CPAP. Intensive support included education and monthly home visits for 6 months. Clinical outcome was monitored by polysomnography at CPAP initiation and, after 3 and 9 months, compliance data were downloaded from the CPAP devices. After 9 months, intensively supported patients returned for follow-up in 88 versus 68% in the standard-support-group. Daily usage (mean±sem 5.7±0.2 for intensive support versus 4.6±0.4 h for standard support), percentage of days used (80.4±2.8 versus 57.0±5.9%) and proportion of individual sleep time (80.6±3.2 versus 64.9±6.2%) were also higher. There was no significant difference between APAP or CPAP, (daily usage 5.2±0.4 versus 5.1±0.3 h, percentage of days 67.9±5.0 versus 69.2±4.9%, proportion of sleep time 72.5±5.0%versus 72.1±5.2%, for APAP and CPAP) but retention rate was higher with CPAP. In summary, intensive support after continuous positive airway pressure initiation, rather than the application of autoadjusting-continuous positive airway pressure, increased therapy adherence.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 81
- Authors
- Damjanovic, D., Fluck, A., Bremer, H., Müller-Quernheim, J., Idzko, M., & Sorichter, S.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Freiburg (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Sorichter, S.
- ORCID
- Idzko, M.
- Venue
- European Respiratory Journal
- Publisher
- European Respiratory Society (ERS)
- Published
- 2009-01-07
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 804-811
- ISSN
- 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
- 1399-3003
- OpenAlex
- W2097208877
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 5.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- European Respiratory Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
- Keywords
- obstructive sleep apnea, CPAP adherence, paracetamol, home care support, home visits, patient education, therapeutic compliance
- MeSH terms
- Analysis of Variance, Female, Home Care Services, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Polysomnography, Sleep Apnea, Obstructive, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review