ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Can mandibular advancement devices be a satisfactory substitute for short term use in patients on nasal continuous positive airway pressure?

D M Smith, J R Stradling

Oxford Centre for Respiratory Medicine, Oxford Radcliffe Trust, Oxford OX3 7LJ, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Professor J Stradling, Oxford Centre for Respiratory Medicine, Oxford Radcliffe Trust, Churchill Campus, Oxford OX3 7LJ, UK;
john.stradling{at}orh.nhs.uk

Background: Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) can successfully control both snoring and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). Many patients on nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for OSA would like a more portable alternative, even if only temporarily. This study assesses what proportion of patients with OSA already on NCPAP can successfully use a MAD for short periods (up to 1 month) as a temporary alternative to NCPAP.

Methods: Fifty patients with OSA, already on NCPAP for at least 3 months, were recruited by invitation. They were provided with a simple fixed MAD estimated to provide 75% of maximum mandibular protrusion. Sleep studies using a portable home recorder were performed on and after three nights without NCPAP to provide control data. Following acclimatisation to the MAD, sleep studies were also planned after 3, 7, and 28 days while using the MAD. If their overnight >4% SaO₂ dips per hour deteriorated to >20 or the Epworth sleepiness score (ESS) rose to >9 (or increased by >4 over baseline) on nights 3 or 7, they were then deemed to have failed the trial and were withdrawn.

Results: Of the 50 patients entered, one had inadequate teeth for a MAD and 31 gave up trying to use the device during the acclimatisation period because of side effects. Of the 18 prepared to use the device, two patients failed at night 3, five at night 7, and two at night 28. Thus, nine patients remained controlled by our criteria at night 28. On average, sleep study indices while using the MAD were poor compared with the night on NCPAP.

Conclusions: Simple MADs are poorly tolerated by patients with OSA already on NCPAP. OSA was adequately controlled by our criteria in 32% of those recruited for the equivalent of a weekend, in 22% for 1 week, and in 18% for up to 1 month. Better tolerated devices would be likely to improve on these figures.

Keywords: obstructive sleep apnoea; mandibular advancement devices; nasal continuous positive airway pressure

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Vanderveken, O. M., Devolder, A., Marklund, M., Boudewyns, A. N., Braem, M. J., Okkerse, W., Verbraecken, J. A., Franklin, K. A., De Backer, W. A., Van de Heyning, P. H. (2008). Comparison of a Custom-made and a Thermoplastic Oral Appliance for the Treatment of Mild Sleep Apnea. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 178: 197-202 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hoekema, A., Stegenga, B., de Bont, L.G.M. (2004). EFFICACY AND CO-MORBIDITY OF ORAL APPLIANCES IN THE TREATMENT OF OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP APNEA-HYPOPNEA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. CROBM 15: 137-155 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Fleury, B., Rakotonanahary, D., Petelle, B., Vincent, G., Fleury, N. P., Meyer, B., Lebeau, B. (2004). Mandibular Advancement Titration for Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Optimization of the Procedure by Combining Clinical and Oximetric Parameters. Chest 125: 1761-1767 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Babar, S. I., Quan, S. F. (2003). Continuous Positive Airway Pressure: Placebo Power, or Does It Really Work?. Arch Intern Med 163: 519-520 [Full Text]  
• Millman, R P, Rosenberg, C L (2002). Are oral appliances a substitute for nasal positive airway pressure?. Thorax 57: 283-284 [Full Text]