Search

BackgroundEvaluation and interpretation of the literature on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) allows for consolidation and determination of the key factors important for clinical management of the adult OSA patient. Toward this goal, an international collaborative of multidisciplinary experts in sleep apnea evaluation and treatment have produced the International Consensus statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (ICS:OSA).MethodsUsing previously defined methodology, focal topics in OSA were assigned as literature review (LR), evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBR-R) formats. Each topic incorporated the available and relevant evidence which was summarized and graded on study quality. Each topic and section underwent iterative review and the ICS:OSA was created and reviewed by all authors for consensus.ResultsThe ICS:OSA addresses OSA syndrome definitions, pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors for disease, screening methods, diagnostic testing types, multiple treatment modalities, and effects of OSA treatment on multiple OSA-associated comorbidities. Specific focus on outcomes with positive airway pressure (PAP) and surgical treatments were evaluated.ConclusionThis review of the literature consolidates the available knowledge and identifies the limitations of the current evidence on OSA. This effort aims to create a resource for OSA evidence-based practice and identify future research needs. Knowledge gaps and research opportunities include improving the metrics of OSA disease, determining the optimal OSA screening paradigms, developing strategies for PAP adherence and longitudinal care, enhancing selection of PAP alternatives and surgery, understanding health risk outcomes, and translating evidence into individualized approaches to therapy.

The existing coverage criteria for home noninvasive ventilation (NIV) do not recognize the diversity of hypoventilation syndromes and advances in technologies. This document summarizes the work of the hypoventilation syndromes Technical Expert Panel working group. The most pressing current coverage barriers identified were: (1) overreliance on arterial blood gases (particularly during sleep); (2) need to perform testing on prescribed oxygen; (3) requiring a sleep study to rule out OSA as the cause of sustained hypoxemia; (4) need for spirometry; (5) need to show bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) without a backup rate failure to qualify for BPAP spontaneous/timed; and (6) qualifying hospitalized patients for home NIV therapy at the time of discharge. Critical evidence support for changes to current policies includes randomized controlled trial evidence and clinical practice guidelines. To decrease morbidity and mortality by achieving timely access to NIV for patients with hypoventilation, particularly those with obesity hypoventilation syndrome, we make the following key suggestions: (1) given the significant technological advances, we advise acceptance of surrogate noninvasive end-tidal and transcutaneous Pco2 and venous blood gases in lieu of arterial blood gases; (2) not requiring Pco2 measures while on prescribed oxygen; (3) not requiring a sleep study to avoid delays in care in patients being discharged from the hospital; (4) remove spirometry as a requirement; and (5) not requiring BPAP without a backup rate failure to approve BPAP spontaneous/timed. The overarching goal of the Technical Expert Panel is to establish pathways that improve clinicians' management capability to provide Medicare beneficiaries access to appropriate home NIV therapy. Adoption of these proposed suggestions would result in the right device, for the right type of patient with hypoventilation syndromes, at the right time.

This document summarizes suggestions of the central sleep apnea (CSA) Technical Expert Panel working group. This paper shares our vision for bringing the right device to the right patient at the right time. For patients with CSA, current coverage criteria do not align with guideline treatment recommendations. For example, CPAP and oxygen therapy are recommended but not covered for CSA. On the other hand, bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) without a backup rate may be a covered therapy for OSA, but it may worsen CSA. Narrow coverage criteria that require near elimination of obstructive breathing events on CPAP or BPAP in the spontaneous mode, even if at poorly tolerated pressure levels, may preclude therapy with BPAP with backup rate or adaptive servoventilation, even when those devices provide demonstrably better therapy. CSA is a dynamic disorder that may require different treatments over time, sometimes switching from one device to another; an example is switching from BPAP with backup rate to an adaptive servoventilation with automatic end-expiratory pressure adjustments, which may not be covered. To address these challenges, we suggest several changes to the coverage determinations, including: (1) a single simplified initial and continuing coverage definition of CSA that aligns with OSA; (2) removal of hypoventilation terminology from coverage criteria for CSA; (3) all effective therapies for CSA should be covered, including oxygen and all PAP devices with or without backup rates or servo-mechanisms; and (4) patients shown to have a suboptimal response to one PAP device should be allowed to add oxygen or change to another PAP device with different capabilities if shown to be effective with testing.

The current national coverage determinations (NCDs) for noninvasive ventilation for patients with thoracic restrictive disorders, COPD, and hypoventilation syndromes were formulated in 1998. New original research, updated formal practice guidelines, and current consensus expert opinion have accrued that are in conflict with the existing NCDs. Some inconsistencies in the NCDs have been noted, and the diagnostic and therapeutic technology has also advanced in the last quarter century. Thus, these and related NCDs relevant to bilevel positive airway pressure for the treatment of OSA and central sleep apnea need to be updated to ensure the optimal health of patients with these disorders. To that end, the American College of Chest Physicians organized a multisociety (American Thoracic Society, American Academy of Sleep Medicine, and American Association for Respiratory Care) effort to engage experts in the field to: (1) identify current barriers to optimal care; (2) highlight compelling scientific evidence that would justify changes from current policies incorporating best evidence and practice; and (3) propose suggestions that would form the basis for a revised NCD in each of these 5 areas (thoracic restrictive disorders, COPD, hypoventilation syndromes, OSA, and central sleep apnea). The expert panel met during a 2-day virtual summit in October 2020 and subsequently crafted written documents designed to achieve provision of "the right device to the right patient at the right time." These documents have been endorsed by the participating societies following peer review and publication in CHEST and will be used to inform efforts to revise the current NCDs.

This document summarizes the work of the CPAP and bilevel PAP therapy for OSA Technical Expert Panel working group. For positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy, the most pressing current coverage barriers identified were: an insufficient symptom list describing all potential symptoms in patients with mild OSA; the 4 h per night of PAP usage requirement to keep the device; the additional sleep studies requirement to re-qualify for PAP or supplemental oxygen; and the inability to use telehealth visits for follow-up visits. Critical evidence supports changes to current policies and includes: symptom list inadequate to cover all scenarios based on updated clinical practice guidelines; published evidence that 2 h per night of PAP use can result in benefit to quality of life and other metrics; the costs of another sleep study not justified for all nonadherent patients or for supplemental oxygen due to other types of assessment currently available; and the remarkable success and acceptance of telehealth visits. To achieve optimal access for patients on PAP therapy, we make the following key suggestions: removing symptom criteria for mild OSA; reduce continued coverage criteria to > 2 h per night; eliminate the need for a sleep study to re-qualify if nonadherent or for new Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services beneficiaries already on and adherent to PAP therapy; allow telehealth visits for documenting benefit and adherence; and allow PAP reports and domiciliary oximetry to qualify for supplemental oxygen with PAP if needed. This paper shares our best vision for bringing the right device to the right patient at the right time.

This document summarizes the work of the COPD Technical Expert Panel working group. For patients with COPD, the most pressing current coverage barriers identified were onerous diagnostic requirements focused on oxygenation (rather than ventilation) and difficulty obtaining bilevel devices with backup rate capabilities. Because of these difficulties, many patients with COPD were instead sometimes prescribed home mechanical ventilators. Critical evidence supports changes to current policies, including randomized controlled trial evidence suggesting a mortality benefit from bilevel positive airway pressure with backup rate and updated clinical practice guidelines from the American Thoracic Society as well as the European Respiratory Society. To achieve optimal access to noninvasive ventilation for patients with COPD, we make the following key recommendations: (1) removal of the need for overnight oximetry testing; (2) the ability to initiate therapy using bilevel devices with backup rate capability; and (3) increased duration of time to meet adherence criteria (ie, a second 90-day trial period) in those patients actively engaged in their care. Clear guidelines based on medical necessity are also included for patients who require initiation of or switch to a home mechanical ventilator. Adoption of these proposed recommendations would result in the right device, for the right type of patient with COPD, at the right time. Finally, we emphasize the need for adequate clinical support during initiation and maintenance of home noninvasive ventilation in such patients.

The existing coverage criteria for noninvasive ventilation (NIV) do not recognize the benefits of early initiation of NIV for those with thoracic restrictive disorders and do not address the unique needs for daytime support as the patients progress to ventilator dependence. This document summarizes the work of the thoracic restrictive disorder Technical Expert Panel working group. The most pressing current coverage barriers identified were: (1) delays in implementing NIV treatment; (2) lack of coverage for many nonprogressive neuromuscular diseases; and (3) lack of clear policy indications for home mechanical ventilation (HMV) support in thoracic restrictive disorders. To best address these issues, we make the following key recommendations: (1) given the need to encourage early initiation of NIV with bilevel positive airway pressure devices, we recommend that symptoms be considered as a reason to initiate therapy even at mildly reduced FVCs; (2) broaden CO2 measurements to include surrogates such as transcutaneous, end-tidal, or venous blood gas; (3) expand the diagnostic category to include phrenic nerve injuries and disorders of central drive; (4) allow a bilevel positive airway pressure device to be advanced to an HMV when the vital capacity is < 30% or to address severe daytime respiratory symptoms; and (5) provide additional HMV when the patient is ventilator dependent with use > 18 h per day. Adoption of these proposed recommendations would result in the right device, at the right time, for the right type of patients with thoracic restrictive disorders.

STUDY OBJECTIVES:Longitudinal studies support the usage of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy in treating obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) to improve cardiovascular disease. However, the anticipated benefit is not ubiquitous. In this study, we elucidate whether PAP therapy leads to immediate improvements on endothelial function, a subclinical marker of cardiovascular status, by examining the effect of circulating exosomes, isolated from patients before and after PAP therapy, on naive endothelial cells. METHODS:We isolated plasma-derived circulating exosomes from 12 patients with severe OSA and obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) before and after 6 weeks of PAP therapy, and examined their effect on cultured endothelial cells using several in vitro reporter assays. RESULTS:We found that circulating exosomes contributed to the induction and propagation of OSA/OHS-related endothelial dysfunction (ie, increased permeability and disruption of tight junctions along with increased adhesion molecule expression, and reduced endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression), and promoted increased monocyte adherence. Further, when comparing exosomes isolated before and after PAP therapy, the disturbances in endothelial cell function were attenuated with treatment, including an overall cumulative decrease in endothelial permeability in all 12 subjects by 10.8% (P = .035), as well as detection of a subset of 4 differentially expressed exosomal miRNAs, even in the absence of parallel changes in systemic blood pressure or metabolic function. CONCLUSIONS:Circulating exosomes facilitate important intercellular signals that modify endothelial phenotype, and thus emerge as potential fundamental contributors in the context of OSA/OHS-related endothelial dysfunction. Exosomes may not only provide candidate biomarkers, but are also a likely and plausible mechanism toward OSA/OHS-induced cardiovascular disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov, Title: AVAPS-AE Efficacy Study, URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01368614, Identifier: NCT01368614.

The purpose of the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine guideline on preoperative screening and assessment of patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is to present recommendations based on the available clinical evidence on the topic where possible. As very few well-performed randomized studies in this field of perioperative care are available, most of the recommendations were developed by experts in the field through consensus processes involving utilization of evidence grading to indicate the level of evidence upon which recommendations were based. This guideline may not be appropriate for all clinical situations and all patients. The decision whether to follow these recommendations must be made by a responsible physician on an individual basis. Protocols should be developed by individual institutions taking into account the patients' conditions, extent of interventions and available resources. This practice guideline is not intended to define standards of care or represent absolute requirements for patient care. The adherence to these guidelines cannot in any way guarantee successful outcomes and is rather meant to help individuals and institutions formulate plans to better deal with the challenges posed by perioperative patients with OSA. These recommendations reflect the current state of knowledge and its interpretation by a group of experts in the field at the time of publication. While these guidelines will be periodically updated, new information that becomes available between updates should be taken into account. Deviations in practice from guidelines may be justifiable and such deviations should not be interpreted as a basis for claims of negligence.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

The purpose of the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine guideline on preoperative screening and assessment of patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is to present recommendations based on the available clinical evidence on the topic where possible. As very few well-performed randomized studies in this field of perioperative care are available, most of the recommendations were developed by experts in the field through consensus processes involving utilization of evidence grading to indicate the level of evidence upon which recommendations were based. This guideline may not be appropriate for all clinical situations and all patients. The decision whether to follow these recommendations must be made by a responsible physician on an individual basis. Protocols should be developed by individual institutions taking into account the patients' conditions, extent of interventions and available resources. This practice guideline is not intended to define standards of care or represent absolute requirements for patient care. The adherence to these guidelines cannot in any way guarantee successful outcomes and is rather meant to help individuals and institutions formulate plans to better deal with the challenges posed by perioperative patients with OSA. These recommendations reflect the current state of knowledge and its interpretation by a group of experts in the field at the time of publication. While these guidelines will be periodically updated, new information that becomes available between updates should be taken into account. Deviations in practice from guidelines may be justifiable and such deviations should not be interpreted as a basis for claims of negligence.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

BackgroundChildhood asthma and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), both disorders of airway inflammation, were associated in recent observational studies. Although childhood OSA is effectively treated by adenotonsillectomy (AT), it remains unclear whether AT also improves childhood asthma. We hypothesized that AT, the first line of therapy for childhood OSA, would be associated with improved asthma outcomes and would reduce the usage of asthma therapies in children.Methods and findingsUsing the 2003-2010 MarketScan database, we identified 13,506 children with asthma in the United States who underwent AT. Asthma outcomes during 1 y preceding AT were compared to those during 1 y following AT. In addition, 27,012 age-, sex-, and geographically matched children with asthma without AT were included to examine asthma outcomes among children without known adenotonsillar tissue morbidity. Primary outcomes included the occurrence of a diagnostic code for acute asthma exacerbation (AAE) or acute status asthmaticus (ASA). Secondary outcomes included temporal changes in asthma medication prescriptions, the frequency of asthma-related emergency room visits (ARERs), and asthma-related hospitalizations (ARHs). Comparing the year following AT to the year prior, AT was associated with significant reductions in AAE (30.2%; 95% CI: 25.6%-34.3%; p

BACKGROUND: In the first months of the pandemic, prior to the introduction of proven-effective treatments, 15-37% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were discharged on home oxygen. After proven-effective treatments for acute COVID-19 were established by evidence-based guidelines, little remains known about home oxygen requirements following hospitalization for COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multi-center cohort study of subjects hospitalized for COVID-19 between October 2020-September 2021 at 3 academic health centers. Information was abstracted from electronic health records at the index hospitalization and for 60 d after discharge. The World Health Organization COVID-19 Clinical Progression Scale score was used to identify patients with severe COVID-19. RESULTS: Of 517 subjects (mean age 58 y, 47% female, 42% Black, 36% Hispanic, 22% with severe COVID-19), 81% were treated with systemic corticosteroids, 61% with remdesivir, and 2.5% with tocilizumab. About one quarter of subjects were discharged on home oxygen (26% [95% CI 22-29]). Older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.02 per 5 y [95% CI 1.02-1.02]), higher body mass index (aOR 1.02 per kg/m2 [1.00-1.04]), diabetes (yes vs no, aOR 1.73 [1.46-2.02]), severe COVID-19 (vs moderate, aOR 3.19 [2.19-4.64]), and treatment with systemic corticosteroids (yes vs no, aOR 30.63 [4.51-208.17]) were associated with an increased odds of discharge on home oxygen. Comorbid hypertension (yes vs no, aOR 0.71 [0.66-0.77) was associated with a decreased odds of home oxygen. Within 60 d of hospital discharge, 50% had documentation of pulse oximetry; in this group, home oxygen was discontinued in 46%. CONCLUSIONS: About one in 41 subjects were prescribed home oxygen after hospitalization for COVID-19, even after guidelines established proven-effective treatments for acute illness. Evidence-based strategies to reduce the requirement for home oxygen in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]