Chest ACCP Education Calendar
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, P. L.
Right arrow Articles by Schwartz, A. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, P. L.
Right arrow Articles by Schwartz, A. R.
(Chest. 2003;123:689-694.)
© 2003 American College of Chest Physicians

A Physiologic Comparison of Nasal and Oral Positive Airway Pressure*

Philip L. Smith, MD; Christopher P. O’Donnell, PhD; Lawrence Allan, BS and Alan R. Schwartz, MD

* From the Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.

Correspondence to: Philip L. Smith, MD, Room 4B0.74, Johns Hopkins Asthma and Allergy Center, 5501 Hopkins Bayview Circle, Baltimore, MD 21224; e-mail: plsmith{at}jhmi.edu

Study objectives: The effectiveness of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in treating obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is based on raising the intramural pressure above a critical collapsing pressure of the oropharyngeal airway. It is currently unclear whether CPAP delivered orally is also capable of raising pressure in the oropharynx above the critical collapse pressure.

Design: We tested a novel oral CPAP device to determine whether the pressure-flow relationships are similar to nasal CPAP and whether the device alters these relationships. Patients were selected based on having moderately severe apnea and were randomized to nasal CPAP, nasal CPAP with oral device, or oral CPAP.

Setting: Johns Hopkins University, The Johns Hopkins Asthma and Allergy Center, Baltimore, MD.

Patients: Five men and two women with OSA were studied.

Interventions: Individual pressure-flow curves were constructed during the application of nasal or oral CPAP.

Results: We found the following: (1) a similar effective pressure eliminated inspiratory flow limitation for the nasal or oral CPAP; (2) as pressure in the nose or mouth was lowered below the effective pressure, a linear pressure-flow curve was obtained and a critical closing pressure was described; (3) similar mean (± SD) critical pressures of -0.3 ± 5.3, 1.7 ± 4.0, and 0.5 ± 2.8 cm H2O, respectively, occurred for nasal CPAP, nasal CPAP with the oral device in place, and oral CPAP conditions (p > 0.1); and (4) the comparable mean values for upstream resistance were 27.8 ± 19, 19.1 ± 8.3, and 26.5 ± 26.7 cm H2O/L/s, respectively, for the above three conditions (p > 0.1).

Conclusions: We concluded that comparable upper airway pressure-flow relationships were obtained during oral and nasal breathing. Moreover, effective treatment pressure is obtained when constant pressure is applied through either the nasal or oral route.

Key Words: obstructive sleep apnea • polysomnography • positive-pressure respiration






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the American College of Chest Physicians.