Observational studySleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2025
Effect of switching from continuous positive airway pressure to bilevel positive airway pressure on symptoms of continuous positive airway pressure-related aerophagia: an observational study part two of a two-part series.
Observational study in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAerophagia occurring during continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) (C-aerophagia) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea can impede treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the use of bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) for managing C-aerophagia.
methodsFifty-one patients newly diagnosed with C-aerophagia who switched from CPAP to auto-BiPAP were monitored. Assessment criteria included flatulence, eructation, abdominal bloating, quantitative evaluation, and onset time. BiPAP effectiveness was categorized as excellent-E (no criteria met), slight-E (partially met), or poor-E (criteria met). C-aerophagia discomfort, including residual cases on BiPAP, was rated via a visual analog scale (VAS; 0 = none, 10 = extreme). Satisfaction with BiPAP was evaluated as positive or negative.
resultsBiPAP effectiveness was excellent in 80.4%, slight in 4.0%, and poor in 15.7% of the patients. The VAS scores decreased significantly with BiPAP compared with those with CPAP (p < 0.001). In the poor-E group, five patients reported positive satisfaction with BiPAP and showed reduced VAS scores. A reduction in 90th percentile expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP) compared with the 90th-95th percentile pressure of CPAP was associated with resolved C-aerophagia, indicating that reducing expiratory pressure while maintaining airway patency is essential. However, eight patients with EPAP ≤ 6.5 cmH
conclusionBiPAP completely or partially resolved C-aerophagia symptoms in 84.3% of the patients. Among patients with residual symptoms, 62.5% (5/8) reported reduced discomfort and expressed satisfaction. Its effectiveness is likely due to lower expiratory pressure; however, in some cases, it remains challenging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40742606What 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.