Jaw thrust versus the use of a boil-and-bite mandibular advancement device as a screening tool during drug-induced sleep endoscopy

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to analyze agreement in degree of obstruction and configuration of the upper airway between jaw thrust and an oral device in situ during drug-induced sleep endoscopy and to evaluate clinical decision making using jaw thrust or a boil-and-bite mandibular advancement device (MAD; the MyTAP). METHODS: This was a single-center prospective cohort study in patients with obstructive sleep apnea who underwent drug-induced sleep endoscopy between January and July 2019. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were included. Agreement among observations in the supine position for degree of obstruction was 60% (n = 36, κ = 0.41) at the level of the velum, 68.3% (n = 41, κ = 0.35) for oropharynx, 58.3% (n = 35, κ = 0.28) for tongue base, and 56.7% (n = 34, κ = 0.14) for epiglottis; agreement among observations in the lateral position were 81.7% (n = 49, κ = 0.32), 71.7% (n = 43, κ = 0.36), 90.0% (n = 54, κ = 0.23), and 96.7% (n = 58, κ = could not be determined), respectively. In the supine position, agreement for configuration of obstruction at the level of the velum was found in 20 of 29 patients (69.0%, κ = 0.41) and in the lateral position was 100%. Thirty patients would have been prescribed a MAD using jaw thrust and 34 using the boil-and-bite MAD as a screening instrument. The main reason for being labeled as nonsuitable was complete residual retropalatal collapse during jaw thrust. Using the boil-and-bite MAD, this was caused by complete retropalatal or hypopharyngeal collapse. CONCLUSIONS: There is only slight to moderate agreement in degree of obstruction for jaw thrust and a new-generation boil-and-bite MAD during drug-induced sleep endoscopy. Greater improvement of upper airway patency at the hypopharyngeal level was observed during jaw thrust, but this maneuver was less effective in improving upper airway obstruction at the retropalatal level. CITATION: Vonk PE, Uniken Venema JAM, Hoekema A, Ravesloot MJL, van de Velde–Muusers JA, de Vries N. Jaw thrust versus the use of a boil-and-bite mandibular advancement device as a screening tool during drug-induced sleep endoscopy. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16(7):1021–1027

Position-dependent obstructive sleep apnea and its influence on treatment success of mandibular advancement devices

© 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.Purpose: Depending on the severity of pre-treatment obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and the criteria used to define treatment success, the efficacy of mandibular advancement devices (MADs) ranges from 30 to 69%. Identifying suitable candidates is the key to increasing the efficacy of a MAD. Positive predictors include a low body mass index, a low apnea–hypopnea index (AHI), and low age. Another consideration is whether or not a patient’s OSA is position dependent. To evaluate the effect of such dependency on MAD treatment success, we studied the following: treatment success across the patient’s total AHI and in the supine and non-supine sleeping positions; the influence of pre-treatment position dependency on MAD treatment success; and the effect of MAD treatment on post-treatment shifts in position dependency. Methods: This is a single-center retrospective study of patients with OSA. Patients were diagnosed through an overnight polysomnography and treated with a MAD between February 2015 and January 2018. They were defined as being positional if the AHI in supine sleeping position was at least twice as high as in the non-supine position. Results: Complete treatment success was achieved in 32% of study population (n = 96) and partial success in 54%. Complete treatment success was significantly higher (p = 0.004) when a patient was sleeping in the non-supine position. Treatment success did not differ significantly between patients who were position dependent and those who were not. When treated with a MAD, patients did not spend significantly more time in supine position. Neither did we find any post-treatment shifts in position dependency. Conclusion: A MAD is an effective treatment modality that may significantly reduce the total AHI, supine, and non-supine AHI. Since position dependency has no impact on MAD treatment success, it does not determine whether or not a patient is a suitable candidate for MAD treatment

The influence of position dependency on surgical success in patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing maxillomandibular advancement

STUDY OBJECTIVES: (1) To evaluate surgical success in patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing maxillomandibular advancement (MMA) stratifying for the reduction of both the total apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and the AHI in the supine and nonsupine position; (2) to evaluate the influence of position dependency on surgical outcome; and (3) to analyze the prevalence of residual position-dependent obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in nonresponders after MMA. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study including a consecutive series of patients with OSA undergoing MMA between August 2011 and February 2019. RESULTS: In total, 57 patients were included. The overall surgical success was 52.6%. No significant difference in surgical success between nonpositional patients (NPP) and positional patients (PP) with OSA was found. Surgical success of the supine AHI was not significantly different between NPP and PP, but surgical success of the nonsupine AHI was significantly greater in NPP than in PP. Of the 17 preoperative NPP, 13 of them moved to being PP with less severe OSA postoperatively. In total, 21 out of 27 nonresponders (77.8%) were PP postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in surgical success between NPP and PP undergoing MMA was found. However, the improvement of total and nonsupine AHI in NPP was significantly greater compared to PP. In nonresponders, a postoperative shift from severe OSA in NPP to less severe OSA in PP was found, caused by a greater reduction of the nonsupine AHI than the supine AHI postoperatively. In patients with residual OSA in the supine position after MMA, additional treatment with positional therapy can be indicated

The influence of position dependency on surgical success in patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing maxillomandibular advancement

STUDY OBJECTIVES: (1) To evaluate surgical success in patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing maxillomandibular advancement (MMA) stratifying for the reduction of both the total apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and the AHI in the supine and nonsupine position; (2) to evaluate the influence of position dependency on surgical outcome; and (3) to analyze the prevalence of residual position-dependent obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in nonresponders after MMA. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study including a consecutive series of patients with OSA undergoing MMA between August 2011 and February 2019. RESULTS: In total, 57 patients were included. The overall surgical success was 52.6%. No significant difference in surgical success between nonpositional patients (NPP) and positional patients (PP) with OSA was found. Surgical success of the supine AHI was not significantly different between NPP and PP, but surgical success of the nonsupine AHI was significantly greater in NPP than in PP. Of the 17 preoperative NPP, 13 of them moved to being PP with less severe OSA postoperatively. In total, 21 out of 27 nonresponders (77.8%) were PP postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in surgical success between NPP and PP undergoing MMA was found. However, the improvement of total and nonsupine AHI in NPP was significantly greater compared to PP. In nonresponders, a postoperative shift from severe OSA in NPP to less severe OSA in PP was found, caused by a greater reduction of the nonsupine AHI than the supine AHI postoperatively. In patients with residual OSA in the supine position after MMA, additional treatment with positional therapy can be indicated

Equal effect of a noncustom vs a custom mandibular advancement device in treatment of obstructive sleep apnea

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Numerous types of mandibular advancement devices (MADs) are available to treat patients with obstructive sleep apnea, varying from noncustom to custom devices. Only a limited number of studies have been performed to determine whether a noncustom MAD could be used to predict treatment success of a custom MAD. In this study, we investigated the potential of a new-generation noncustom MAD, by comparing its effectiveness with a custom MAD. We hypothesized that the effectiveness of the devices is similar with regard to both objective (polysomnography) and self-reported (questionnaires, adherence, and patient satisfaction) outcomes. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective randomized crossover study including a consecutive series of patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Patients were randomized to start either with the noncustom or custom MAD. Both MADs were applied for 12 weeks, followed by polysomnography with MAD in situ and questionnaires. After the first 12 weeks of follow-up, a washout period of 1 week was applied. Equal effectiveness was defined as no significant differences in both objective and self-reported outcomes between both devices. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were included; 40 completed the full follow-up. The median apnea-hypopnea index significantly decreased from 16.3 (7.7, 24.8) events/h to 10.7 (5.6, 16.6) events/h with the custom MAD (P = .010) and to 7.8 (2.9, 16.1) events/h with the noncustom MAD (P < .001). Self-reported outcomes significantly improved in both groups. No significant differences were found between both devices. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of a noncustom and custom MAD is comparable, which suggests that a noncustom MAD can be used as a selection tool for MAD treatment eligibility to improve MAD treatment outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: Netherlands Trial Register; Name: The Use of a Boil and Bite Mandibular Advancement Device vs a Custom Mandibular Advancement Device in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Management; URL: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7249; Identifier: NL64738.100.18. CITATION: Bosschieter PFN, Uniken Venema JAM, Vonk PE, et al. Equal effect of a noncustom vs a custom mandibular advancement device in treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(9):2155-2165

Equal effect of a noncustom vs a custom mandibular advancement device in treatment of obstructive sleep apnea

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Numerous types of mandibular advancement devices (MADs) are available to treat patients with obstructive sleep apnea, varying from noncustom to custom devices. Only a limited number of studies have been performed to determine whether a noncustom MAD could be used to predict treatment success of a custom MAD. In this study, we investigated the potential of a new-generation noncustom MAD, by comparing its effectiveness with a custom MAD. We hypothesized that the effectiveness of the devices is similar with regard to both objective (polysomnography) and self-reported (questionnaires, adherence, and patient satisfaction) outcomes. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective randomized crossover study including a consecutive series of patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Patients were randomized to start either with the noncustom or custom MAD. Both MADs were applied for 12 weeks, followed by polysomnography with MAD in situ and questionnaires. After the first 12 weeks of follow-up, a washout period of 1 week was applied. Equal effectiveness was defined as no significant differences in both objective and self-reported outcomes between both devices. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were included; 40 completed the full follow-up. The median apnea-hypopnea index significantly decreased from 16.3 (7.7, 24.8) events/h to 10.7 (5.6, 16.6) events/h with the custom MAD (P = .010) and to 7.8 (2.9, 16.1) events/h with the noncustom MAD (P < .001). Self-reported outcomes significantly improved in both groups. No significant differences were found between both devices. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of a noncustom and custom MAD is comparable, which suggests that a noncustom MAD can be used as a selection tool for MAD treatment eligibility to improve MAD treatment outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: Netherlands Trial Register; Name: The Use of a Boil and Bite Mandibular Advancement Device vs a Custom Mandibular Advancement Device in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Management; URL: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7249; Identifier: NL64738.100.18. CITATION: Bosschieter PFN, Uniken Venema JAM, Vonk PE, et al. Equal effect of a noncustom vs a custom mandibular advancement device in treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(9):2155-2165

An interim oral appliance as a screening tool during drug-induced sleep endoscopy to predict treatment success with a mandibular advancement device for obstructive sleep apnea

Purpose: Previous studies have shown a wide range of efficacy (29 to 71%) of a mandibular advancement device (MAD) in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Currently, the ability to preselect suitable patients for MAD therapy based on individual characteristics related to upper airway collapsibility is limited. We investigated if the use of non-custom interim MAD during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) could be a valuable screening tool to predict MAD treatment outcome. Methods: In a single-center prospective study including a consecutive series of patients with OSA, we compared DISE outcomes with a MAD in situ with polysomnography results after 3 months of using the same MAD that was used during DISE. Results: Of 41 patients who completed the study, the median apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) was 16.0 events/h [IQR 7.4–23.4]. Respiratory outcomes on polysomnography, including apnea index (AI), total AHI, AHI in supine position, and oxygen desaturation index, all significantly improved after 3 months of MAD treatment. With complete improvement of the upper airway obstruction with the MAD in situ during DISE in supine position, patients were 6.3 times more likely to be a responder to MAD treatment compared to patients with a persisting complete obstruction, although not statistically significant (OR 6.3; 95%CI 0.9–42.7; p = 0.060). Conclusion: The potential predictive value with regard to MAD therapy outcomes of the use of an interim MAD during DISE would be an important finding, since the prediction of MAD therapy outcome is of great clinical and scientific interest. A study with a larger cohort should be performed to further investigate our findings

An interim oral appliance as a screening tool during drug-induced sleep endoscopy to predict treatment success with a mandibular advancement device for obstructive sleep apnea

PURPOSE: Previous studies have shown a wide range of efficacy (29 to 71%) of a mandibular advancement device (MAD) in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Currently, the ability to preselect suitable patients for MAD therapy based on individual characteristics related to upper airway collapsibility is limited. We investigated if the use of non-custom interim MAD during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) could be a valuable screening tool to predict MAD treatment outcome. METHODS: In a single-center prospective study including a consecutive series of patients with OSA, we compared DISE outcomes with a MAD in situ with polysomnography results after 3 months of using the same MAD that was used during DISE. RESULTS: Of 41 patients who completed the study, the median apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) was 16.0 events/h [IQR 7.4–23.4]. Respiratory outcomes on polysomnography, including apnea index (AI), total AHI, AHI in supine position, and oxygen desaturation index, all significantly improved after 3 months of MAD treatment. With complete improvement of the upper airway obstruction with the MAD in situ during DISE in supine position, patients were 6.3 times more likely to be a responder to MAD treatment compared to patients with a persisting complete obstruction, although not statistically significant (OR 6.3; 95%CI 0.9–42.7; p = 0.060). CONCLUSION: The potential predictive value with regard to MAD therapy outcomes of the use of an interim MAD during DISE would be an important finding, since the prediction of MAD therapy outcome is of great clinical and scientific interest. A study with a larger cohort should be performed to further investigate our findings