Administering 7.5 mg/kg Bev after induction did not improve outcome in extensive SCLC patients.

Background and objective Average volume‐assured pressure support—automated expiratory positive airway pressure (AVAPS‐AE) combines an automated positive expiratory pressure to maintain upper airway patency to an automated pressure support with a targeted tidal volume. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 2‐month AVAPS‐AE ventilation versus pressure support (ST) ventilation on objective sleep quality in stable patients with OHS. Secondary outcomes included arterial blood gases, health‐related quality of life, daytime sleepiness, subjective sleep quality and compliance to NIV. Methods This is a prospective multicentric randomized controlled trial. Consecutive OHS patients included had daytime PaCO2 > 6 kPa, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, clinical stability for more than 2 weeks and were naive from home NIV. PSG were analysed centrally by two independent experts. Primary endpoint was sleep quality improvement at 2 months. Results Among 69 trial patients, 60 patients had successful NIV setup. Baseline and follow‐up PSG were available for 26 patients randomized in the ST group and 30 in the AVAPS‐AE group. At baseline, PaCO2 was 6.94 ± 0.71 kPa in the ST group and 6.61 ± 0.71 in the AVAPS‐AE group (P = 0.032). No significant between‐group difference was observed for objective sleep quality indices. Improvement in PaCO2 was similar between groups with a mean reduction of −0.87 kPa (95% CI: −1.12 to −0.46) in the ST group versus −0.87 kPa (95% CI: −1.14 to −0.50) in the AVAPS‐AE group (P = 0.984). Mean NIV use was 6.2 h per night in both groups (P = 0.93). NIV setup duration was shorter in the AVAPS‐AE group (P = 0.012). Conclusion AVAPS‐AE and ST ventilation for 2 months had similar impact on sleep quality and gas exchange.

No abstract

RationaleAdaptive servo ventilation (ASV) is contraindicated in patients with systolic heart failure (HF) who have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below 45% and predominant central sleep apnoea (CSA). However, the effects of ASV in other HF subgroups have not been clearly defined.ObjectiveThe European, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort trial, FACE, evaluated the effects of ASV therapy on morbidity and mortality in patients with HF with sleep-disordered breathing (SDB); 3-month outcomes in patient subgroups defined using latent class analysis (LCA) are presented.MethodsConsecutive patients with HF with predominant CSA (±obstructive sleep apnoea) indicated for ASV were included from 2009 to 2018; the non-ASV group included patients who refused/were noncompliant with ASV. The primary endpoint was time to composite first event (all-cause death, lifesaving cardiovascular intervention or unplanned hospitalisation for worsening of chronic HF).Measurements and main resultsBaseline assessments were performed in 503 patients, and 482 underwent 3-month follow-up. LCA identified six discrete patient clusters characterised by variations in LVEF, SDB type, age, comorbidities and ASV acceptance. The 3- month rate of primary outcome events was significantly higher in cluster 1 patients (predominantly men, low LVEF, severe HF, CSA; 13.9% vs 1.5%–5% in other clusters, p<0.01).ConclusionFor the first time, our data identified homogeneous patient clusters representing clinically relevant subgroups relating to SDB management in patients with HF with different ASV usage, each with a different prognosis. This may improve patient phenotyping in clinical practice and allow individualisation of therapy.

Purpose Mandibular repositioning devices (MRDs) are an effective treatment option for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), particularly in patients who refuse or cannot tolerate continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). However, sex differences in the response to therapy and predictors of response are not clearly defined. This analysis of data from the long-term prospective ORCADES trial compared MRD efficacy in men and women with OSAS. Methods The ORCADES study included patients with newly diagnosed mild-to-moderate or severe OSAS who refused or were non-compliant with CPAP. MRD therapy was titrated over 3–6 months. The primary endpoint was treatment success (≥ 50% decrease in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI)). Complete response was defined using a range of AHI cut-off values (< 5/h, < 10/h, < 15/h). Results Overall treatment success rates were 89% in women and 76% in men ( p = 0.019); corresponding rates in those with severe OSAS (AHI > 30/h) were 100% and 68% ( p = 0.0015). In women vs. men, overall complete response rates at AHI cut-off values of < 5/h, <10/h, and < 15/h were 49 vs. 34% ( p = 0.0052), 78 vs. 62% ( p = 0.016), and 92 vs. 76% ( p = 0.0032). On multivariate analysis, significant predictors of MRD treatment success were overbite and baseline apnea index in men, and neck circumference and no previous CPAP therapy in women. There were sex differences in the occurrence of side effects. Temporomandibular joint pain was the most common reason for stopping MRD therapy. Conclusions MRD therapy was effective in women with OSA of any severity, with significantly higher response rates compared with men especially in severe OSAS. Trial registration www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01326143).