ArticleJournal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine2013
Bench test evaluation of adaptive servoventilation devices for sleep apnea treatment.
Article in Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Noninvasive Ventilation Automated Technologies: A Bench Evaluation of Device Responses to Sleep-Related Respiratory Events.Respiratory care · 2023Article
- Patterns of adaptive servo-ventilation settings in a real-life multicenter study: pay attention to volume! : Adaptive servo-ventilation settings in real-life conditions.Respiratory research · 2020Observational
- Use of the WatchPAT to detect occult residual sleep-disordered breathing in patients on CPAP for obstructive sleep apnea.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2020Article
- Pressure-Relief Features of Fixed and Autotitrating Continuous Positive Airway Pressure May Impair Their Efficacy: Evaluation with a Respiratory Bench Model.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2016Article
- Technology for noninvasive mechanical ventilation: looking into the black box.ERJ open research · 2016Review
- All APAPs Are Not Equivalent for the Treatment of Sleep Disordered Breathing: A Bench Evaluation of Eleven Commercially Available Devices.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleAdaptive servoventilation devices are marketed to overcome sleep disordered breathing with apneas and hypopneas of both central and obstructive mechanisms often experienced by patients with chronic heart failure. The clinical efficacy of these devices is still questioned. STUDY
objectivesThis study challenged the detection and treatment capabilities of the three commercially available adaptive servoventilation devices in response to sleep disordered breathing events reproduced on an innovative bench test.
methodsThe bench test consisted of a computer-controlled piston and a Starling resistor. The three devices were subjected to a flow sequence composed of central and obstructive apneas and hypopneas including Cheyne-Stokes respiration derived from a patient. The responses of the devices were separately evaluated with the maximum and the clinical settings (titrated expiratory positive airway pressure), and the detected events were compared to the bench-scored values.
resultsThe three devices responded similarly to central events, by increasing pressure support to raise airflow. All central apneas were eliminated, whereas hypopneas remained. The three devices responded differently to the obstructive events with the maximum settings. These obstructive events could be normalized with clinical settings. The residual events of all the devices were scored lower than bench test values with the maximum settings, but were in agreement with the clinical settings. However, their mechanisms were misclassified.
conclusionThe tested devices reacted as expected to the disordered breathing events, but not sufficiently to normalize the breathing flow. The device-scored results should be used with caution to judge efficacy, as their validity depends upon the initial settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.