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

No abstract