Comparison of therapeutic and subtherapeutic nasal continuous positive airway pressure for obstructive sleep apnoea: a randomised prospective parallel trial.

BackgroundNasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) is widely used as a treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea. However, to date there are no randomised controlled trials of this therapy against a well-matched control. We undertook a randomised prospective parallel trial of therapeutic NCPAP for obstructive sleep apnoea compared with a control group on subtherapeutic NCPAP.MethodsMen with obstructive sleep apnoea, defined as an Epworth sleepiness score of 10 or more and ten or more dips per h of more than 4% SaO2 caused by obstructive sleep apnoea on overnight sleep study, were randomly assigned therapeutic NCPAP or subtherapeutic NCPAP (about 1 cm H2O) for 1 month. Primary outcomes were subjective sleepiness (Epworth sleepiness score), objective sleepiness (maintenance of wakefulness test), and SF-36 questionnaire measurements of self-reported functioning and well-being.Findings107 men entered the study: 53 received subtherapeutic NCPAP and 54 therapeutic NCPAP. Use of NCPAP by the two treatment groups was similar: 5.4 h (therapeutic) and 4.6 h (subtherapeutic) per night. Subtherapeutic NCPAP did not alter the overnight number of SaO2 dips per h compared with baseline, and thus acted as a control. Therapeutic NCPAP was superior to subtherapeutic NCPAP in all primary outcome measures. The Epworth score was decreased from a median of 15.5 to 7.0 on therapeutic NCPAP, and from 15.0 to 13.0 on subtherapeutic NCPAP (between treatments, p