All APAPs Are Not Equivalent for the Treatment of Sleep Disordered Breathing: A Bench Evaluation of Eleven Commercially Available Devices
Open accessAbstract
Study objectives This study challenged on a bench-test the efficacy of auto-titrating positive airway pressure (APAP) devices for obstructive sleep disordered breathing treatment and evaluated the accuracy of the device reports.Methods Our bench consisted of an active lung simulator and a Starling resistor. Eleven commercially available APAP devices were evaluated on their reactions to single-type SDB sequences (obstructive apnea and hypopnea, central apnea, and snoring), and to a long general breathing scenario (5.75 h) simulating various SDB during four sleep cycles and to a short scenario (95 min) simulating one sleep cycle.Results In the single-type sequence of 30-minute repetitive obstructive apneas, only 5 devices normalized the airflow (> 70% of baseline breathing amplitude). Similarly, normalized breathing was recorded with 8 devices only for a 20-min obstructive hypopnea sequence. Five devices increased the pressure in response to snoring. Only 4 devices maintained a constant minimum pressure when subjected to repeated central apneas with an open upper airway. In the long general breathing scenario, the pressure responses and the treatment efficacy differed among devices: only 5 devices obtained a residual obstructive AHI < 5/h. During the short general breathing scenario, only 2 devices reached the same treatment efficacy (p < 0.001), and 3 devices underestimated the AHI by > 10% (p < 0.001). The long scenario led to more consistent device reports.Conclusion Large differences between APAP devices in the treatment efficacy and the accuracy of report were evidenced in the current study.
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 38 · Cited by 46
- Authors
- Zhu, K., Roisman, G., Aouf, S., & Escourrou, P.
- Affiliations
- Université Paris-Sud (FR)
- Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
- Air Liquide (France) (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Zhu, Kaixian
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine
- Published
- 2015-07-15
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 725-734
- ISSN
- 1550-9389 (ISSN-L)
- 1550-9397
- PMC
- PMC4481055
- OpenAlex
- W2396847105
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 2.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
- Keywords
- CPAP devices, obstructive sleep apnea, sleep-disordered breathing, lung simulator, apnea-hypopnea index, central sleep apnea, snoring, treatment efficacy
- MeSH terms
- Automation, Equipment Design, Equipment Safety, Humans, Positive-Pressure Respiration, Sleep Apnea Syndromes, Reproducibility of Results, Equipment Failure Analysis, Benchmarking, Sleep Apnea, Obstructive, Sleep Apnea, Central
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