ADVERTISEMENT

Issue Navigator

Volume 13 No. 09
Earn CME
Accepted Papers
Classifieds





Scientific Investigations

Upper Airway Stimulation for Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: An Evaluation and Comparison of Outcomes at Two Academic Centers

Colin Huntley, MD1; Thomas Kaffenberger2; Karl Doghramji, MD3; Ryan Soose, MD4; Maurits Boon, MD1
1Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 2School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 3Jefferson Sleep Disorder Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 4Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Study Objectives:

Data from patients at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (TJUH) and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) undergoing upper airway stimulation (UAS) were analyzed. We hypothesize that treatment with UAS will improve both subjective and objective outcome measures and results will be reproducible between institutions.

Methods:

We reviewed patients undergoing UAS between May 2014 and August 2016. We recorded demographic data, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and preoperative and postoperative polysomnographic information. We compared outcome data between institutions and subsequently combined the cohorts and compared baseline to posttreatment results.

Results:

The TJUH cohort consisted of 30 males and 18 females with a mean age of 60.88 years and body mass index of 29.29. The mean preoperative apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), O2 nadir, and ESS were 35.88, 80.96, and 11.09, respectively. The mean postoperative AHI, O2 nadir, and ESS were 6.34, 88.04, and 5.77, respectively. The UPMC cohort consisted of 30 males and 19 females with a mean age of 62.84 years and body mass index of 27.74. The mean preoperative AHI, O2 nadir, and ESS were 35.29, 79.58, and 10.94, respectively. The mean postoperative AHI, O2 nadir, and ESS were 6.28, 84.35, and 6.60, respectively. We found no difference in patients reaching a postoperative AHI less than 15, 10, and 5 when comparing the cohorts. After combining cohorts, we found a significant improvement in postoperative AHI, O2 nadir, and ESS compared to preoperative values.

Conclusions:

UAS appears to provide a viable alternative to continuous positive airway pressure, producing improvement in both polysomnographic and quality-of-life measures. Results are reproducible at high-volume centers.

Citation:

Huntley C, Kaffenberger T, Doghramji K, Soose R, Boon M. Upper airway stimulation for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: an evaluation and comparison of outcomes at two academic centers. J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13(9):1075–1079.




Please login to continue reading the full article

Subscribers to JCSM get full access to current and past issues of the JCSM.

Login to JCSM

Not a subscriber?

Join the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and receive a subscription to JCSM with your membership

Subscribe to JCSM:  $75/volume year for individuals or $140/volume year for institutions to access all current articles and archives published in JCSM.

Download this article*:   $20 to access a PDF version of a specific article from the current issue of JCSM.

*Purchase of an electronic download of JCSM provides permission to access and print the issue/article for personal scholarly, research and educational use. Please note: access to the article is from the computer on which the article is purchased ONLY. Purchase of the article does not permit distribution, electronic or otherwise, of the article without the written permission of the AASM. Further, purchase does not permit the posting of article text on an online forum or website.