Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=21 Randomized Treatment

Differences in Efficacy Between Nasal and Oronasal Masks in the Treatment of OSA With CPAP

Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA)

Enrolled (actual)
21
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
May 2017
Primary outcome: Primary: Comparison of the Effectiveness of Nasal Versus Oronasal CPAP Masks — 332.64; 346.79 minutes

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
Switch CPAP mask type (Device)
Age
Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
Weill Medical College of Cornell University
Primary completion
Jul 2013

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Nasal Versus Oronasal CPAP Masks
332.64; 346.79

Summary

Our group previously conducted a study looking at the performance of three styles of positive airway pressure masks during laboratory treatment studies for obstructive sleep apnea, and we found that patients using a full-mask mask required higher positive airway pressures than patients using nasal or nasal pillows style masks to achieve successful reduction of respiratory events. In the current study we want to randomly assign patients to either nasal or full-face masks and then switch to a different mask (if nasal was originally chosen than the mask will be switched to full-face and vise versa) after 3-weeks of use to see if the number of respiratory events change with the different mask style. We expect the number of respiratory events will increase with the use of full-face masks.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • 18 years or older
  • previously diagnosed with OSA
  • returning for PAP titrations at the Center for Sleep Medicine
  • CPAP and titration naive
  • Must have a Apnea/Hypopnea Index (AHI) of ≥ 16/hr.

Exclusion Criteria

  • Patients with ≥ 50% central apneas
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01909674). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search