Abstract
Introduction
Hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HNS) has recently been introduced as an alternative treatment for patients with OSA. A large number of studies have demonstrated substantial changes in OSA with this therapy by reducing respiratory events and improving symptoms such as daytime sleepiness and quality of life. The objective of this review was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate patient-reported outcomes and experience with HNS therapy.
Methods
A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Web of Science was performed to identify randomized controlled and observational studies reporting subjective outcomes with different HNS systems in patients with OSA. Abstracts of 406 articles were screened and a subset of 55 articles were reviewed for eligibility. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Meta-analysis using RevMan was performed when > 2 studies were identified that reported data on a specific outcome.
Results
Thirty-four publications reporting data on 3785 patients with a mean follow-up of 11.8 ± 12.2 months were identified and included in the meta-analysis. The analysis revealed a pooled effect of 4.59 points improvement in daytime sleepiness as measured by the ESS questionnaire (Z = 42.82, p < .001), 2.84 points improvement in daytime functioning as measured by the FOSQ score (Z = 28.38, p < .001), and 1.77 points improvement in sleep quality as measured by the PSQI questionnaire (Z = 2.53, p = .010). Patient-reported experience was consistently positive and revealed additional relevant aspects from this perspective.
Conclusion
HNS therapy significantly improves quality of life in patients with OSA and reliably produces clinically meaningful effects on daytime sleepiness, daytime functioning, and sleep quality. Treatment regularly meets or exceeds the minimum clinically important differences defined for the respective instruments. Additional research is needed to further investigate effects on quality of life beyond improvements in daytime sleepiness and daytime functioning.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Among respiratory disorders, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is one of the most common, potentially affecting up to a quarter of the world’s population [1,2,3]. Although highly prevalent, the condition is often unrecognized until patients report symptoms such as sleep disruption and insomnia, daytime sleepiness, reduced daytime functioning, or associated neurocognitive disorders. In addition, if left untreated, OSA can lead to a variety of cardiovascular, neurological, and metabolic comorbidities [4, 5]. Due to difficulties in maintaining wakefulness during the day, patients with untreated OSA are more likely to be involved in motor vehicle collisions or occupational accidents [6, 7]. Recently, OSA has been increasingly recognized as a prognostic factor in cancer [8, 9].
OSA is considered to be a multifactorial disease that leads to collapse of the soft tissues of the upper airway during sleep when muscle tone decreases [4]. Besides advanced age, smoking and alcohol consumption, obesity is the main risk factor for developing OSA, although anatomical factors such as retrognathia also increase the likelihood of developing OSA.
From a patient perspective, several dimensions of OSA treatment have been identified as outcome-relevant, although their use in clinical research and routine practice is highly heterogeneous [10]. A core outcome set for effectiveness research in OSA, which will harmonize outcome-relevant endpoints, is currently under development [11]. From various studies, patient preferences in OSA treatment are relatively well understood and are increasingly considered relevant to improve the effectiveness of health interventions, which often depends on adherence. As such, high clinical efficacy, i.e., reduction in the risk of OSA-related comorbidities, improvements in daytime sleepiness and fatigue, and low rates of treatment side effects and adverse events are preferred from the patient's perspective [12,13,14].
To date, there is no curative treatment for OSA. In clinical practice, various therapies are used to prevent collapse of the upper airway muscles during sleep [15, 16]. In most countries, positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy is used as a first-line treatment, which is highly effective in reducing obstructive events and improving symptoms when used consistently. [However, many patients with OSA have difficulty adhering to PAP therapy due to side effects, complications, and impaired sleep quality [17,18,19]. Various treatments have been introduced as alternatives for patients who cannot tolerate PAP and are routinely used in clinical practice. In the non-surgical field, mandibular advancement devices (MAD) and position trainers are recommended in treatment guidelines. Among surgical therapies, resecting procedures such as tonsillectomy or soft palate surgery are used in selected patients [20]. Recently, hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HNS), which uses electrical stimulation to activate the upper airway dilator muscles at night, has been introduced as a new treatment option [21]. Several studies and real-world analyses have shown that HNS can lead to a sustained reduction in obstructive events and improve sleep-related quality of life in patients with appropriate airway anatomy and low body mass index [22,23,24,25]. In addition to observational cohort studies, randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have underscored the efficacy of HNS therapy [26,27,28,29,30]. A recently published study comparing PAP therapy with HNS using propensity score stratification showed non-inferiority in reducing obstructive events and superiority in improving sleep-related quality of life, one of the most important patient-relevant endpoints in OSA [31].
Patient-reported outcome and patient-reported experience (PROM, PREM) measures have become increasingly important in the health sciences over the past decade, particularly in the development and evaluation of new medical technologies during market introduction. In addition to generic instruments for reporting quality of life and subjective health status, such as the Short Form 36 (SF-36) or the European Quality of Life Questionnaires (EQ-5D), indication-specific instruments are an important element for determining disease severity and for assessing the efficacy and effectiveness of health interventions. PROM, and increasingly PREM, are commonly reported as endpoints in clinical trials, but are also often part of regulatory submissions for new medical products [32, 33]. In sleep medicine, several PROM have been validated and are commonly used in clinical practice to assess sleep-related quality of life [34]. Since a core outcome set for OSA hasn’t been implemented yet, there is a high variability of instruments used in clinical trials and routine practice.
Although numerous studies have been published on the efficacy and effectiveness of HNS, no attempt has been made to quantify the effect size of PROM across these publications. Therefore, the aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review and aggregate the effects of PROM and PREM in a meta-analysis.
Methods
The research question was defined a priori using the PICO format. For the purpose of this analysis, any study that evaluated adult patients with OSA treated with HNS therapy and reported changes between baseline and follow-up on any PROM or PREM was included.
Data collection, quality assessment and extraction
Based on the research question, a search strategy was developed to identify publications of interest and searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. The search included studies published up to August 30, 2022. Data were collected electronically using Rayyan software [35]. As a first step, two researchers (MB, MW) independently screened articles for eligibility, blinded to each other and to the researcher who performed the searches (MS) to reduce identification bias. Screening included an initial review of abstracts for inclusion and exclusion criteria. These were defined as follows:
-
Inclusion criteria: Publication 01/2000–08/2022, publication in English language, ≥ 10 subjects included, follow-up ≥ 3 months; reporting PROM or PREM in OSA-relevant outcome domain.
-
Exclusion criteria: Review articles, case reports, animal or in vitro studies, editorials, abstracts, publications reporting on pediatric populations, publications in languages other than English.
In cases where abstracts did not provide sufficient information, full texts were reviewed to determine eligibility. Discrepancies in screening were discussed among the reviewers until consensus was reached. The screening process was documented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) framework [36].
Per PICO question for this analysis, inclusion of research from both randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies was allowed to achieve a comprehensive understanding of PROM in HNS. To assess the quality of the included studies, a risk of bias assessment was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions using the ROBINS-I tool for observational and case–control studies [37, 38].
After a final set of articles was identified for inclusion in the meta-analysis, PROM data were extracted into an MS Excel database. Extracted information included PROM instrument, study type and stimulation method studied, mean and standard deviation of PROM data, and follow-up period.
Statistical analysis
Patient-reported outcome data were extracted as mean ± standard deviation and entered into RevMan 5.4 for meta-analysis (Review Manager, version 5.4, Copenhagen/Denmark). Effect sizes were reported as the mean difference in change from baseline to the last reported follow-up with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Due to the strict labeling of HNS therapy, resulting in a fairly homogeneous patient population, and the fact that the purpose of the study is to aggregate outcomes in this particular population, a fixed effects model was considered appropriate and selected for analysis. A Chi2 test and Higgins and Thompson's I2 statistics were used to assess heterogeneity among the included studies. Results were considered statistically significant at an alpha level of 0.05 for two-tailed z-tests.
Welch's tests were used to assess differences between stimulation methods, which were considered of interest due to the different underlying mechanisms of action of the HNS stimulation technologies included in this study.
Publication bias
Publication bias was tested using Egger’s regression analysis when three or more studies were identified for an outcome [39, 40]. P-values of < 0.05 were considered significant for presence of bias, and trim and fill adjusted analysis conducted to remove outliers from the positive side of the funnel plot, and evaluate the revised effect size.
Results
Research identification and quality assessment
From the a priori defined literature search, 406 studies were identified and their abstracts were screened by two independent investigators using Rayyan software [35]. Of these 406 articles, 351 had to be excluded for various reasons, as shown in the PRISMA diagram, and 55 articles were included for full-text screening to determine eligibility for inclusion in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1). Twenty-one had to be excluded because they used data from studies already included (n = 12), did not report relevant PROM or PREM data (n = 7), did not include follow-up data (n = 1), or lacked data required for meta-analysis (n = 1). The final set included for meta-analysis consisted of 34 studies reporting data on a total of 3785 patients with a mean follow-up of 11.8 ± 12.2 months. Thirty-one studies with 3701 patients reported on respiration-synchronized HNS (mean follow-up = 12.2 ± 12.8 months), while three studies with a total of 84 patients reported on continuous HNS therapy (mean follow-up = 8.0 ± 2.8 months) (Tables 1 and 2).
A researcher not involved in the screening and eligibility process (MS) performed the quality assessment using the ROBINS-I tool for observational and case–control studies. The majority of included studies were found to have low/moderate bias, and only five and two were found to have severe and critical bias, respectively (Table 2 and full assessment in Table 1 in the online supplement).
Identified patient-relevant outcomes measures
Seven different PROM instruments were identified from the included studies. All 34 studies used the ESS as a measure of daytime sleepiness in OSA patients, seven reported changes in daytime functioning as measured by the FOSQ. The SAQLI was used in three studies, the PSQI in two studies, and the ISI, FSS, and PHQ-9 in one study each.
Epworth sleepiness scale
Quantitative analysis to assess change in daytime sleepiness as measured by the ESS questionnaire used a fixed effects model (p < 0.001, I2 = 82%) and showed a pooled effect of 4.59 points improvement on the ESS questionnaire (95% CI 4.38–4.80; Z = 42.82, p < 0.001; Fig. 2). One study was removed because it included ESS data from cohorts reported in other articles. All studies included in the analysis, which included data from 3,116 subjects, reported changes in ESS scores that met or exceeded the MID of 2.0 points improvement. Breath-synchronized stimulation had a mean improvement of 4.61 points (95% CI 4.39–4.82; Z = 42.03, p < 0.001), while continuous stimulation decreased ESS scores by a mean of 3.61 points (95% CI 2.16–5.17; Z = 4.77, p < 0.001). A two-sample Welch t-test showed that the mean ESS improvement was significantly greater with breathing-synchronized stimulation compared to continuous stimulation (t (18.0) = 3.92, p < 0.001).
Functional outcomes of sleep questionnaire
Data on the FOSQ instrument to assess changes in daytime functioning were available from seven studies, reporting results for 906 patients (Fig. 3). Following the rationale above, a fixed effects model was used to aggregate the results. There was substantial heterogeneity with an I2 of 92% (p < 0.001). A pooled effect size of 2.84 points improvement in FOSQ score (95% CI 2.64–3.03; Z = 28.38, p < 0.001). Due to the relatively small number of studies reporting FOSQ data, a comparative analysis by stimulation method could not be performed.
Calgary sleep apnea quality of life index (SAQLI)
The SAQLI questionnaire, which assesses the impact of OSA on five dimensions of daily life, was used in three studies with a total of 95 subjects (Fig. 4). In the meta-analysis using a fixed effects model, a mean difference of 1.07 (95% CI 0.74–1.40; Z = 6.36, p < 0.001) was calculated, which met the minimal important difference of 1.0 points. Again, a comparative analysis by stimulation method was not performed due to the small number of studies identified.
Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI)
For the PSQI, two studies were identified that reported a mean change of 1.77 (95% CI 0.44–3.15; Z = 2.53, p = 0.010). The minimal important difference for this instrument of 4.0 points was not reached (Fig. 5).
Other patient-reported outcome measurements
A few other PROM instruments were identified in the systematic literature review, but could not be included in the meta-analysis because only one study per PROM was identified. To provide a complete overview of patient-reported outcomes with HNS therapy, these are reported individually in Table 3. Of the three PROMs identified, two met the minimum important difference.
Patient-reported experience measures
As there is no standardized instrument to assess patient experience with HNS therapy, a qualitative review was conducted. Of the 34 articles included from the literature search, three reported on patient experience, including attitudes toward HNS therapy, satisfaction with treatment, and comparison with PAP ventilation. Hofauer et al. described overall positive attitudes towards HNS therapy in the areas of improvement of sleep-related and general health and quality of life, realization of expectations and satisfaction with the treatment decision [39]. Suurna et al. reported on the experience of 1016 patients enrolled in the ADHERE registry using a questionnaire introduced by Hasselbach et al. in 2018 [55, 70]. Here, 91% of patients were satisfied with HNS therapy, 92% would choose the therapy again and 94% would recommend it. 92% considered the treatment to be superior to PAP ventilation used prior to stimulation therapy. The same questionnaire was used by Baptista et al. in a cohort of patients treated in Spain, for which comparable experiences were reported with values of 86%, 89%, 89% and 91%, respectively [41].
Publication bias assessment
Egger’s test for publication bias was significant for the outcome ESS (p = 0.020). Sensitivity analyses, in which studies expected on the negative side of the funnel plot were imputed by using the trim and fill method were included, showed no significant differences in effect size (4.59, points, 95% CI 4.38–4.80 points; vs. 4.06 points, 95% CI 3.86–4.26). There was no evidence of publication bias for the outcomes FOSQ (p = 0.984) and SAQLI (p = 0.136), and the outcome PSQI was not evaluated, since only two studies were included in the analysis.
Discussion
Alternative treatment options for patients with OSA who cannot tolerate PAP therapy have been limited for many years. Recently, the range of options has expanded significantly, improving the management of this serious chronic condition that affects a large number of patients worldwide. Nocturnal hypoglossal nerve stimulation has been shown in a number of studies to reduce the number of respiratory events during sleep and improve sleep-related quality of life. While most of the evidence is based on observational studies, randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have also been conducted. This study is the first to report patient-reported outcomes and experiences in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Subjective outcomes of HNS therapy were considered particularly important because objective measures of sleep apnea, such as the Apnea Hypopnea Index (AHI), do not always correlate with OSA symptoms such as daytime sleepiness and impaired sleep quality [42,43,44]. Furthermore, as a chronic condition with a significant impact on quality of life, patient-reported outcomes and treatment experience are important factors influencing treatment acceptance and adherence, which is of great importance given the nature of an implant-based treatment that requires surgical intervention.
The current first-line treatment for OSA, PAP ventilation, has been shown in numerous studies to be effective in reducing respiratory events and improving symptoms such as daytime sleepiness and daytime functioning [45,46,47]. Long-term adherence is often low due to side effects and complications [17, 48].
The ESS questionnaire, which is the dominant tool in sleep apnea outcome research, was reported in all studies included in this analysis. Regardless of the stimulation method used, HNS therapy consistently reduces OSA daytime sleepiness as measured by the ESS beyond the minimally important difference and sustainably for up to three to five years of follow-up. Though we summarized outcomes of different stimulation systems here, it is important to highlight that differences between them were found for certain domains of interest, such as improvement of daytime sleepiness, measured with the ESS questionnaire.
The magnitude of ESS improvement summarized in this systematic review and meta-analysis is greater than the changes commonly observed with PAP therapy [86]. Though it was not the objective of this study to compare the two methods, it is an interesting finding that is consistent with current research comparing HNS therapy to PAP ventilation, which shows superior efficacy in improving symptoms of OSA with nocturnal stimulation [31, 50].
Another important dimension of patient-reported outcomes is daytime functioning, which is often impaired by poor and non-restorative sleep in OSA. The FOSQ is a widely used instrument to measure the level of impairment in daytime functioning and was reported in seven studies included in this analysis. Changes in the FOSQ were observed in all studies, and the average improvement of 2.84 points was above the minimally important difference for this questionnaire. The overall magnitude of effect was smaller for the assessment of daytime sleepiness than for the ESS, which may be explained by the broader outcome domains assessed by the FOSQ.
Beyond these two questionnaires, few studies have used other instruments, which represents an opportunity for future research in the area of patient-reported outcomes with HNS therapy. An important area in this regard is OSA-related insomnia, which is often present in patients due to arousals after respiratory events. Changes in this parameter with HNS therapy were identified in only two studies in the literature search for this analysis. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to missing data in one article. Pascoe et al. report significant improvements on the Insomnia Severity Scale (ISI), with 46.9% of 85 patients reaching the MID [50]. In another study published after the literature search was completed, Pordzik et al. confirmed these findings in a cohort of 27 patients who experienced a mean improvement of 5.0 points on the ISI questionnaire [51].
The effect of HNS therapy on depression, one of the most common symptoms in patients with OSA, has also been understudied. For the systematic review of this study, only one article was identified that reported changes in the PHQ-9 questionnaire [42]. Among 48 patients for whom data were available, an average improvement of 4.0 points was reported, with 29.2% reaching the MID for this instrument.
PREMs are an emerging area in outcomes research because they allow evaluation of consequences for patients beyond changes in symptoms. In addition, PREM allow the assessment of the process quality of health care interventions, which is important for estimating the global effects of treatments. Experiences with HNS therapy have been reported to be largely positive across studies, with high levels of satisfaction with treatment and subjective efficacy. The development of a standardized PREM tool for HNS therapy would be beneficial to allow standardized evaluation and comparison across different cohorts and stimulation systems.
Limitations
Firstly, this study was not registered ex ante at the PROSPERO database of the National Institute for Health and Care research, which would have increased the transparency of the research conducted.
It is also important to emphasize that this meta-analysis included mainly observational cohort or case–control studies and only two studies with randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. Additional RCT data would be valuable for a thorough assessment of outcomes. Also, the aim of this study was to evaluate patient-reported outcomes with HNS therapy, which inherently introduces a bias in the reporting of outcomes. Nevertheless, consideration of the patient perspective is an essential part of health technology assessment worldwide.
Another limitation is the range of outcome domains included in this analysis. These represent only a subset of the potential benefits of OSA treatment in general and HNS treatment in particular. While the ESS is widely used to measure symptoms in patients with OSA, it is important to highlight that recent research identified significant limitations of this tool in the form of greater test–retest variability as initially reported and a larger variance in certain subpopulations [83].
Another limitation is that the study does not include characteristics of the study populations that were included in the meta-analysis, such as gender or age distribution, and which could have an impact on outcomes. In addition, the study did not include adverse events and treatment complications, which are highly relevant from a patient perspective [52]; however, aggregated event rates have been previously reported in detail in meta-analyses by Kompelli et al. and Costantino et al. [28, 29] A recent study by Bellamkonda et al. analyzed adverse events reported to the MAUDE database at the United States Food and Drug Administration, which is a valuable source for real-world data. and found various complications and side-effects, mainly related to the surgical procedure [84]. Those potential events and their likelihood should be considered by patients and physicians in the decision-making process.
Of note, a recent study by Crossley et al. reported a potential bias in HNS studies, since research has been sponsored by manufacturers of the stimulation devices [85]. Though this imposes a conflict of interest, it is common for early clinical research in absence of sufficient funding for these activities.
Finally, most articles reported data on breath-synchronized HNS therapy, including the two RCTs, whereas only four continuous stimulation studies could be identified, which may have biased the results. However, as almost all included studies achieved the MID for the respective devices, the risk is considered to be low.
Conclusion
The effects of HNS therapy result in significant and sustained improvements in patient-reported outcomes. Changes in the ESS questionnaire, which assesses daytime sleepiness due to OSA, reach the MID and are greater than improvements commonly reported with PAP therapy. The meta-analysis also found significant improvements in other outcome domains, such as daytime functioning and subjective sleep quality, although these did not always reach the MID. Patient-reported experiences with HNS therapy are positive and show high satisfaction with this treatment in several aspects. Thus, HNS therapy is well accepted by patients and leads to significant and clinically meaningful improvements in self-reported QoL.
Data availability
The data of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Benjafield AV et al (2019) Estimation of the global prevalence and burden of obstructive sleep apnoea: a literature-based analysis. Lancet Respir Med 7(8):687–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30198-5
Fietze I et al (2018) Prevalence and association analysis of obstructive sleep apnea with gender and age differences—results of SHIP-Trend. J Sleep Res 28:e12770. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12770
Heinzer R et al (2015) Prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing in the general population: the HypnoLaus study. Lancet Respir Med 3(4):310–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00043-0
Dempsey JA, Veasey SC, Morgan BJ, O’Donnell CP (2010) Pathophysiology of sleep apnea. Physiol Rev 90(1):47–112. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00043.2008
Knauert M, Naik S, Gillespie MB, Kryger M (2015) Clinical consequences and economic costs of untreated obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. W J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1(1):17–27
Tregear S, Reston J, Schoelles K, Phillips B (2010) Continuous positive airway pressure reduces risk of motor vehicle crash among drivers with obstructive sleep apnea: systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep 33(10):1373–1380
Garbarino S, Guglielmi O, Sanna A, Mancardi GL, Magnavita N (2016) Risk of occupational accidents in workers with obstructive sleep apnea: systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep 39(6):1211–1218. https://doi.org/10.5665/sleep.5834
Cao Y, Ning P, Li Q, Wu S (2022) Cancer and obstructive sleep apnea. Medicine (Baltimore) 101(10):e28930. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000028930
Huang H-Y et al (2020) Severe OSA associated with higher risk of mortality in stage III and IV lung cancer. J Clin Sleep Med 16(7):1091–1098. https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.8432
Abma IL, van der Wees PJ, Veer V, Westert GP, Rovers M (2016) Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in adults with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA): a systematic review. Sleep Med Rev 28:18–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2015.07.006
Wanyan P et al (2020) Obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome: protocol for the development of a core outcome set. Medicine 99(34):e21591. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000021591
Braun M, Dietz-Terjung S, Taube C, Schoebel C (2022) Patient preferences in obstructive sleep apnea—a discrete choice experiment. Sleep Breath. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-021-02549-z
Krucien N, Gafni A, Fleury B, Pelletier-Fleury N (2013) Patients’ with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) preferences and demand for treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Thorax 68(5):487–488. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2012-202240
Almeida FR et al (2013) Patient preferences and experiences of CPAP and oral appliances for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a qualitative analysis. Sleep Breath 17(2):659–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-012-0739-6
Epstein LJ et al (2009) Clinical guideline for the evaluation, management and long-term care of obstructive sleep apnea in adults. J Clin Sleep Med 5(3):263–276
Stuck BA et al (2020) Teil-Aktualisierung S3-Leitlinie Schlafbezogene Atmungsstörungen bei Erwachsenen. Somnologie. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11818-020-00257-6
Schoch OD, Baty F, Niedermann J, Rüdiger JJ, Brutsche MH (2014) Baseline predictors of adherence to positive airway pressure therapy for sleep apnea: a 10-year single-center observational cohort study. Respiration 87(2):121–128. https://doi.org/10.1159/000354186
Grewe FA et al (2020) Patterns of nightly CPAP usage in OSA patients with suboptimal treatment adherence. Sleep Med 74:109–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2020.05.042
Fietze I et al (2020) Wenn CPAP nicht genutzt oder nicht vertragen wird - Vorschlag für eine standardisierte Terminologie. Somnologie. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11818-020-00233-0
Verse T et al (2016) ENT-specific therapy of obstructive sleep apnoea in adults: a revised version of the previously published German S2e guideline. Sleep Breath 20(4):1301–1311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-016-1353-9
Van de Heyning PH et al (2012) Implanted upper airway stimulation device for obstructive sleep apnea. Laryngoscope 122(7):1626–1633. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.23301
Strollo PJJ et al (2014) Upper-airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea. N Engl J Med 370(2):139–149. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1308659
Steffen A, Sommer JU, Hofauer B, Maurer JT, Hasselbacher K, Heiser C (2017) Outcome after one year of upper airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea in a multicenter German post-market study. Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26688
Woodson BT et al (2018) Upper airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea: 5-year outcomes. Otolaryngol Neck Surg 159(1):194–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599818762383
Steffen A, Sommer UJ, Maurer JT, Abrams N, Hofauer B, Heiser C (2019) Long-term follow-up of the German post-market study for upper airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Breath. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-019-01933-0
Woodson BT et al (2014) Randomized controlled withdrawal study of upper airway stimulation on OSA: short- and long-term effect. Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 151(5):880–887. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599814544445
Heiser C, Steffen A, Hofauer B, Mehra R, Strollo PJ Jr, Vanderveken OM, Maurer JT (2021) Effect of upper airway stimulation in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (EFFECT): a randomized controlled crossover trial. J Clin Med. 10(13):2880. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132880
Kompelli AR, Ni JS, Nguyen SA, Lentsch EJ, Neskey DM, Meyer TA (2019) The outcomes of hypoglossal nerve stimulation in the management of OSA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Otorhinolaryngol - Head Neck Surg 5(1):41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wjorl.2018.04.006
Costantino A, Rinaldi V, Moffa A, Luccarelli V, Bressi F, Cassano M, Casale M, Baptista P (2020) Hypoglossal nerve stimulation long-term clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Breath. 24(2):399–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-019-01923-2
Mehra R, Steffen A, Heiser C, Hofauer B, Withrow K, Doghramji K, Boon M, Huntley C, Soose RJ, Stevens S, Larsen C, Maurer JT, Waters T, Walia HK, Kominsky AH, Trask D, Schwab RJ, Thaler ER, Strollo PJ (2020) Upper airway stimulation versus untreated comparators in positive airway pressure treatment refractory obstructive sleep apnea. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 17(12):1610–1619. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202001-015OC
Heiser C, Steffen A, Strollo PJ, Giaie-Miniet C, Vanderveken OM, Hofauer B (2022) Hypoglossal nerve stimulation versus positive airway pressure therapy for obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Breath. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-022-02663-6
Patient-Reported Outcomes: The Example of Health-Related Quality of Life—A European Guidance Document for the Improved Integration of Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment in the Drug Regulatory Process - Olivier Chassany, Pierre Sagnier, Patrick Marquis, Steve Fullerton, Neil Aaronson, For the European Regulatory Issues on Quality of Life Assessment Group, For the European Regulatory Issues on Quality of Life Assessment Group (2002) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009286150203600127. Accessed 20 Oct 2022
Basch E et al (2015) Patient-reported outcomes in cancer drug development and US regulatory review: perspectives from industry, the food and drug administration, and the patient. JAMA Oncol 1(3):375–379. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0530
Pevernagie D, Bauters FA, Hertegonne K (2021) The role of patient-reported outcomes in sleep measurements. Sleep Med Clin 16(4):595–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsmc.2021.07.001
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A (2016) Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 5(1):210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews | The BMJ. https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n71. Accessed 20 Oct 2022
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions | The BMJ. https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i4919. Accessed 21 Oct 2022
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 26 Jan 2023
Lin L, Chu H (2018) Quantifying publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 74(3):785–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12817
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634
Baptista PM, Prieto-Matos C, Alegre-Esteban M, Urrestarazu-Bolumburu E, Alcade Navarrete J (2021) Hypoglossal nerve stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea in spain: implementation strategy and early results in a tertiary care center. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-021-02503-1
Pascoe M et al (2022) Association of hypoglossal nerve stimulation with improvements in long-term, patient-reported outcomes and comparison with positive airway pressure for patients with obstructive sleep apnea. JAMA Otolaryngol Neck Surg 148(1):61–69. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2021.2245
Johns MW (1991) A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: the Epworth sleepiness scale. Sleep 14(6):540–545
Crook S et al (2019) Minimum important difference of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale in obstructive sleep apnoea: estimation from three randomised controlled trials. Thorax 74(4):390–396. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-211959
Weaver TE et al (1997) An instrument to measure functional status outcomes for disorders of excessive sleepiness. Sleep 20(10):835–843
Weaver TE, Menno DM, Bron M, Crosby RD, Morris S, Mathias SD (2021) Determination of thresholds for minimally important difference and clinically important response on the functional outcomes of sleep questionnaire short version in adults with narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Breath 25(3):1707–1715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-020-02270-3
Krupp LB, Alvarez LA, LaRocca NG, Scheinberg LC (1988) Fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 45(4):435–437. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1988.00520280085020
Nordin Å, Taft C, Lundgren-Nilsson Å, Dencker A (2016) Minimal important differences for fatigue patient reported outcome measures—a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 16:62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0167-6
Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF, Monk TH, Berman SR, Kupfer DJ (1989) The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res 28(2):193–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(89)90047-4
Longo UG et al (2021) Minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for the pittsburgh sleep quality index in patients who underwent rotator cuff tear repair. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(16):8666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168666
Flemons WW, Reimer MA (1998) Development of a disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire for sleep apnea. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 158(2):494–503. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.158.2.9712036
Flemons WW, Reimer MA (2002) Measurement properties of the calgary sleep apnea quality of life index. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 165(2):159–164. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.165.2.2010008
Bastien CH, Vallières A, Morin CM (2001) Validation of the Insomnia Severity Index as an outcome measure for insomnia research. Sleep Med 2(4):297–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9457(00)00065-4
Yang M, Morin CM, Schaefer K, Wallenstein GV (2009) Interpreting score differences in the Insomnia Severity Index: using health-related outcomes to define the minimally important difference. Curr Med Res Opin 25(10):2487–2494. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007990903167415
Hasselbacher K, Hofauer B, Maurer JT, Heiser C, Steffen A, Sommer JU (2018) Patient-reported outcome: results of the multicenter German post-market study. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 275(7):1913–1919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-018-5017-1
The PHQ‐9 - Kroenke - 2001 - Journal of General Internal Medicine - Wiley Online Library. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x. Accessed 15 Jan 2023
Löwe B, Unützer J, Callahan CM, Perkins AJ, Kroenke K (2004) Monitoring depression treatment outcomes with the patient health questionnaire-9. Med Care 42(12):1194–1201
Eastwood PR, Barnes M, Walsh JH, Maddison KJ, Hee G, Schwartz AR, Smith PL, Malhotra A, McEvoy RD, Wheatley JR, O’Donoghue FJ, Rochford PD, Churchward T, Campbell MC, Palme CE, Robinson S, Goding GS, Eckert DJ, Jordan AS, Catcheside PG, Tyler L, Antic NA, Worsnop CJ, Kezirian EJ, Hillman DR (2011) Treating obstructive sleep apnea with hypoglossal nerve stimulation. Sleep. 34(11):1479–86. https://doi.org/10.5665/sleep.1380
Eastwood PR et al (2019) Bilateral hypoglossal nerve stimulation for treatment of adult obstructive sleep apnea. Eur Respir J. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01320-2019
Friedman M et al (2016) Targeted hypoglossal nerve stimulation for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: six-month results. Laryngoscope 126(11):2618–2623. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25909
Heiser C, Knopf A, Murat B, Gahleitner C, Hofauer B (2016) Selective upper-airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea—a single center clinical experience. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-4297-6
Hinder D, Schams SC, Knaus C, Tschopp K (2022) Home sleep apnea testing with peripheral arterial tonometry to assess outcome in upper airway stimulation. J Clin Sleep Med J 18(9):2197–2205. https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.10082
Hofauer B, Philip P, Wirth M, Knopf A, Heiser C (2017) Effects of upper-airway stimulation on sleep architecture in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Breath. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-017-1519-0
Huntley C, Steffen A, Doghramji K, Hofauer B, Heiser C, Boon M (2018) Upper airway stimulation in patients with obstructive sleep apnea and an elevated body mass index: a multi-institutional review: impact of BMI on upper airway stimulation. Laryngoscope 128(10):2425–2428. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27426
Kent DT, Carden KA, Wang L, Lindsell CJ, Ishman SL (2019) Evaluation of hypoglossal nerve stimulation treatment in obstructive sleep apnea. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 145(11):1044–1052. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2019.2723
Kent DT, Lee JJ, Strollo PJJ, Soose RJ (2016) Upper airway stimulation for OSA: early adherence and outcome results of one center. Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. 155(1):188–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599816636619
Kezirian EJ, Goding GS Jr, Malhotra A, O’Donoghue FJ, Zammit G, Wheatley JR, Catcheside PG, Smith PL, Schwartz AR, Walsh JH, Maddison KJ, Claman DM, Huntley T, Park SY, Campbell MC, Palme CE, Iber C, Eastwood PR, Hillman DR, Barnes M (2014) Hypoglossal nerve stimulation improves obstructive sleep apnea: 12-month outcomes. J Sleep Res. 23(1):77–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12079
Kumar AT, Vasconcellos A, Boon M, Huntley C (2019) Inclusion of the first cervical nerve does not influence outcomes in upper airway stimulation for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28256
Mahmoud AF, Thaler ER (2017) Upper airway stimulation therapy and prior airway surgery for obstructive sleep apnea. Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26956
Suurna MV, Steffen A, Boon M, Chio E, Copper M, Patil RD, Green K, Hanson R, Heiser C, Huntley C, Kent D, Larsen C, Manchanda S, Maurer JT, Soose R, de Vries N, Walia HK, Thaler E, ADHERE Registry Investigators (2021) Impact of body mass index and discomfort on upper airway stimulation: ADHERE registry 2020 update. Laryngoscope. 131(11):2616–2624. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29755
Mwenge GB, Rombaux P, Dury M, Lengele B, Rodenstein D (2013) Targeted hypoglossal neurostimulation for obstructive sleep apnoea: a 1-year pilot study. Eur Respir J 41(2):360–367. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00042412
Parikh V et al (2018) Early feasibility of hypoglossal nerve upper airway stimulator in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices and continuous positive airway pressure-intolerant severe obstructive sleep apnea. Heart Rhythm 15(8):1165–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.04.016
Dhanda Patil R, Sarber KM, Epperson MV, Tabangin M, Altaye M, Mesa F, Ishman SL (2021) Hypoglossal nerve stimulation: outcomes in veterans with obstructive sleep apnea and common comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder. Laryngoscope. 131(Suppl 3):S1–S11. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29292
Dhanda Patil R, Hong MP, Ishman SL (2021) Hypoglossal nerve stimulation in veterans with comorbid insomnia and sleep apnea. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 164(6):1345–1353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599820982638
Pawlak D, Bohorquez D, König IR, Steffen A, Thaler ER (2021) Effect of electrode configuration and impulse strength on airway patency in neurostimulation for obstructive sleep apnea. Laryngoscope 131(9):2148–2153. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29530
Philip P, Heiser C, Bioulac S, Altena E, Penchet G, Cuny E, Hofauer B, Monteyrol PJ, Micoulaud-Franchi JA (2018) Hypoglossal nerve stimulation on sleep and level of alertness in OSA: a preliminary study. Neurology. 91(7):e615–e619. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000006001
Sarber KM, Chang KW, Epperson MV, Tabangin ME, Altaye M, Ishman SL, Dhanda Patil R (2020) Hypoglossal nerve stimulation in veterans with obstructive sleep apnea. Laryngoscope. 130(9):2275–2280. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28422
Sarber KM, Chang KW, Ishman SL, Epperson MV, Patil RD (2020) Hypoglossal nerve stimulator outcomes for patients outside the U.S. FDA recommendations. Laryngoscope 130(4):866–872. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28175
Hofauer B, Steffen A, Knopf A, Hasselbacher K, Heiser C (2019) Patient experience with upper airway stimulation in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Breath 23(1):235–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-018-1689-4
Shah J, Russell JO, Waters T, Kominsky AH, Trask D (2018) Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty vs CN XII stimulation for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a single institution experience. Am J Otolaryngol 39(3):266–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2018.03.003
Steffen A, Abrams N, Suurna MV, Wollenberg B, Hasselbacher K (2019) Upper-airway stimulation before, after, or without uvulopalatopharyngoplasty: a two-year perspective. Laryngoscope 129(2):514–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27357
Weeks B, Bao G, Gilbert TM, Emdur L (2018) Hypoglossal nerve stimulator implantation in a non-academic setting: two-year result. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 3(4):315–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.176
Scharf MT (2022) Reliability and efficacy of the epworth sleepiness scale: is there still a place for it? Nat Sci Sleep 2022(14):2151–2156. https://doi.org/10.2147/NSS.S340950
Bellamkonda NT, Shiba T, Mendelsohn AH (2021) Adverse events in hypoglossal nerve stimulator implantation: 5-year analysis of the FDA MAUDE database. Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. 162(2):443–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599820960069
Crossley JR, Wallerius K, Hoa M, Davidson B, Guirintano JP (2021) Association between conflict of interest and published position on hypoglossal nerve stimulation for sleep apnea. Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. 165(2):375–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599820982914
Labarca G, Saavedra D, Dreyse J, Jorquera J, Barbe F (2020) Efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for improvements in sleepiness, cognition, mood and quality of life in elderly patients with obstructive sleep apnea: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Chest. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.049
Withrow K, Evans S, Harwick J, Kezirian E, Strollo P (2019) Upper airway stimulation response in older adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea. Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599819848709
Zhu Z, Hofauer B, Wirth M, Hasselbacher K, Frohnhofen H, Heiser C, Steffen A (2018) Selective upper airway stimulation in older patients. Respir Med. 140:77–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2018.06.002
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge support by the Open Access Publication Fund of the University of Duisburg-Essen.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
M.B. is an employee of Onera Health (The Netherlands), a company unrelated to the research topic of this study. M.S. is an employee of the German Cancer Research Center, a company unrelated to the research topic of this study. M.W. received consulting fees from SI-BONE (United States) a company unrelated to the research topic of this study and personal fees from Inspire Medical Systems (United States). C.S. received personal fees from ResMed (Australia). J.S. received personal fees from Inspire Medical Systems (United States) and from Neuwirth Medical Products (Germany), research grants from Sutter Medizintechnik (Germany), Löwenstein Medical (Germany), Nyxoah (Belgium) and Inspire Medical Systems (United States). C.H. was a consultant for Inspire Medical Systems (United States), received personal fees from Neuwirth Medical Products (Germany), and research grants from Sutter Medizintechnik (Germany), Löwenstein Medical (Germany), Nyxoah (Belgium) and Inspire Medical Systems (United States).
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on sleep apnea syndrome Guest Editors: Manuele Casale, Rinaldi Vittorio.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Braun, M., Stoerzel, M., Wollny, M. et al. Patient-reported outcomes with hypoglossal nerve stimulation for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 280, 4627–4639 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-08062-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-08062-1