Search

Rationale: Mouth breathing increases upper airway collapsibility, leading to decreased efficacy of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treatments. We hypothesized that the use of mandibular advancement devices (MAD) increases mouth breathing, and thus, using an adhesive mouthpiece (AMT) to prevent mouth breathing in combination with MAD can improve the treatment efficacy. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of MAD + AMT in comparison with MAD alone. Methods: A prospective crossover pilot study was designed to test this hypothesis. Briefly, adult participants with an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) between 10 and 50 events/h at the screening visit were randomized to no treatment (baseline), MAD treatment, AMT treatment, and MAD + AMT treatment. As a primary analysis, absolute AHI was compared between MAD and MAD + AMT arms. Secondary analyses included quantifying the percent change in AHI, percentage of complete (AHI < 5 events/h) and incomplete (5-10 events/h) responders, and the efficacy of AMT alone in comparison with other treatment arms. Results: A total of 21 participants were included (baseline AHI = 24.3 ± 9.9 events/h). The median AHI (interquartile range) in the MAD and MAD + AMT arms were 10.5 (5.4-19.6) events/h and 5.6 (2.2-11.7) events/h (P = 0.02), respectively. A total of 76% of individuals achieved an AHI of <10 events/h in the MAD + AMT arm versus 43% in the MAD arm (P < 0.01). Finally, the observed effect was similar in moderate to severe OSA (AHI ⩾ 15 events/h) in terms of absolute reduction and treatment responders, and AMT alone did not significantly reduce the AHI compared with baseline. Conclusions: A combination of an adhesive mouthpiece and MAD is a more effective therapy than MAD alone. These findings may help improve clinical decision making in sleep apnea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Exposure of naive subjects to swine buildings results in acute nasal, lung, and peripheral blood inflammatory responses with an increase in nonallergic airway responsiveness. Because nasal passages filter large particles and soluble gases and because swine building exposure results in an acute inflammatory response at this level, we questioned what effect breathing through or avoiding this route would have on local and systemic inflammation. Nine normal young men 23 to 37 yr of age were exposed for 5 h to a swine building, once breathing normally and once with the mouth occluded (n = 8) (Protocol 1) or the nose occluded (n = 4) (Protocol 2); three subjects participated in both protocols. For each protocol each subject underwent a methacholine challenge for PC20 measurement, a nasal lavage, venous blood puncture, and a bronchoalveolor lavage (BAL) once before and once after each swine building exposure. Bronchial responsiveness as measured by PC20 decreased in most subjects after swine building exposure and was not influenced by the route of breathing. Nasal lavage neutrophils increased tenfold after each swine exposure, except when the nose was occluded where no alteration was observed. Total BAL cells significantly increased after each exposure to the swine building, this increase was not modified by the route of breathing. In Protocol 1, white blood cells increased from a baseline level of 7.0 to 10.5 x 10(9) cells/L after exposure with normal breathing and to 10.7 x 10(9) cells/L during nasal breathing exclusively. For Protocol 2, these respective values were: 5.6, 11.7 and 10.4 x 10(9)/L. Interleukins 6 and 8 levels in BAL, nasal washes, and serum were increased by swine building exposure, except in the nasal wash when the nose was occluded. In conclusion, the lung and blood responses to exposure in a swine confinement building are not modified by the route of breathing, suggesting that nasal inflammation and filtration are not important in the process and that small respirable particles and/or gases may be responsible for these responses.

We characterized the nasal contribution to exhaled nitric oxide (NO) at rest and during breathholding in humans. Exhaled NO was greater during nose breathing (141 +/- 17 nl/min/M2, mean +/- SEM) compared with mouth breathing (68 +/- 6 nl/min/M2, n = 8, p < 0.001). After voluntary closure of the soft palate (VCSP) to eliminate nasal NO, exhaled NO from the mouth decreased further (30 +/- 4 nl/min/M2, p < 0.001). Release of NO into nasal passages during VCSP (217 +/- 19 nl/min/M2) was greater than exhaled NO during nasal breathing (141 +/- 17 nl/min/m2, p < 0.001), suggesting that nasal NO is taken up by the respiratory tract. During mouth breathing or nose breathing, NO concentrations sampled with a bronchoscope were higher in the nasopharynx than at the epiglottis or in the trachea in five subjects. Increased peak exhaled NO after a breathhold (33 +/- 7 ppb) was reduced (10 +/- 4 ppb, p < 0.001) after balloon occlusion of the nasopharynx. NO concentration during breathholding increased to a greater extent in the nasopharynx than in the pharynx or trachea. We conclude that the majority of exhaled NO at rest and during a breathhold originates in the nasopharynx.