Advertisement

Sleep and Breathing

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 473–480 | Cite as

Positional OSA part 1: towards a clinical classification system for position-dependent obstructive sleep apnoea

  • M. H. Frank
  • M. J. L. Ravesloot
  • J. P. van Maanen
  • E. Verhagen
  • J. de Lange
  • N. de Vries
Original Article

Abstract

Background

In 1984, Cartwright suggested that physicians should differentiate between patients with either positional obstructive sleep apnoea (POSA) or non-positional OSA. Treatment of POSA has advanced dramatically recently with the introduction of a new generation of positional therapy (PT), a small device attached to either the neck or chest which corrects the patient from adopting the supine position through a vibrating stimulus. Encouraging data have been published suggesting that this simple therapy successfully prevents patients with POSA from adopting the supine position without negatively influencing sleep efficiency, as well as allowing for good adherence. Unfortunately, evaluating the efficacy of PT and comparing results are hindered by the fact that there are no universally used POSA criteria. In 1984, Cartwright introduced the arbitrary cut-off point of a difference of 50 % or more in apnoea index between supine and non-supine positions.

Introduction

The aim of this project was to introduce a new classification system, which ideally should identify suitable candidates for PT: patients that will benefit from a clinically significant improvement of their OSA with PT. The shared use of this classification can facilitate collection of data across multiple centres and comparison of results across studies. We report on the development and process that resulted in the Amsterdam Positional OSA Classification (APOC).

Method

A panel of three field experts were instructed to independently assign the diagnosis POSA to 100 randomly selected patients they considered likely to benefit from a clinically significant improvement of their OSA with PT. In a group setting, the completed lists were compared. Discrepancies were discussed until consensus was met. This resulted in the consensus standard used to calibrate the new classification. Using the nominal group technique, the APOC was developed.

Results

The APOC criteria evolve around the percentage of total sleep time spent in either the worst sleeping position (WSP) or the best sleeping position (BSP) and the apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI) in BSP. On applying APOC, one discriminates between the true positional patient, the non-positional patient and the multifactorial patient, whose OSA severity is influenced in part by sleep position. APOC has an increased sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) compared to previously applied POSA criteria in identifying patients that will benefit from positional therapy.

Keywords

Sleep apnoea Obstructive Sleeping position Positional therapy 

List of abbreviations

AHI

Apnoea–hypopnoea index

APOC

Amsterdam Positional OSA Classification

BMI

Body mass index

BSP

Best sleeping position

CPAP

Continuous positive airway pressure

DI

Desaturation index

ICC

Intercorrelation coefficient

NPV

Negative predictive value

OSA

Obstructive sleep apnoea

POSA

Position-dependent obstructive sleep apnoea

PPV

Positive predictive value

PSG

Polysomnography

PT

Positional therapy

SaO2

Saturation oxygen

TBT

Tennis ball technique

TST

Total sleep time

WSP

Worst sleeping position

References

  1. 1.
    Ravesloot MJ, van Maanen JP, Dun L, de VN (2013) The undervalued potential of positional therapy in position-dependent snoring and obstructive sleep apnea-a review of the literature. Sleep Breath 17:39–49CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oksenberg A, Gadoth N (2013) Are we missing a simple treatment for most adults sleep apnea patients? The avoidance of the supine sleep position. J Sleep Res 23:204–210. doi: 10.1111/jsr.12097 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bignold JJ, Deans-Costi G, Goldsworthy MR, Robertson CA, McEvoy D, Catcheside PG, Mercer JD (2009) Poor long-term patient compliance with the tennis ball technique for treating positional obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Sleep Med 5:428–430PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wenzel S, Smith E, Leiacker R, Fischer Y (2007) Efficacy and longterm compliance of the vest preventing the supine position in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Laryngorhinootologie 86:579–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oksenberg A, Silverberg D, Offenbach D, Arons E (2005) Positional therapy for obstructive sleep apnea patients: a 6-month follow-up study. Laryngoscope 116:1995–2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marklund M, Verbraecken J, Randerath W (2012) Non-CPAP therapies in obstructive sleep apnoea: mandibular advancement device therapy. Eur Respir J 39:1241–1247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Maanen JP, Meester KA, Dun LN et al (2013) The sleep position trainer: a new treatment for positional obstructive sleep apnoea. Sleep Breath 17:771–779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Maanen JP, Richard W, Van Kesteren ER et al (2012) Evaluation of a new simple treatment for positional sleep apnoea patients. J Sleep Res 21:322–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bignold JJ, Mercer JD, Antic NA, McEvoy RD, Catcheside PG (2011) Accurate position monitoring and improved supine-dependent obstructive sleep apnea with a new position recording and supine avoidance device. J Clin Sleep Med 7:376–383PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cartwright RD (1984) Effect of sleep position on sleep apnea severity. Sleep 7:110–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marklund M, Persson M, Franklin KA (1998) Treatment success with a mandibular advancement device is related to supine-dependent sleep apnea. Chest 114:1630–1635CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mador MJ, Kufel TJ, Magalang UJ, Rajesh SK, Watwe V, Grant BJ (2005) Prevalence of positional sleep apnea in patients undergoing polysomnography. Chest 128:2130–2137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Permut I, Diaz-Abad M, Chatila W et al (2010) Comparison of positional therapy to CPAP in patients with positional obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Sleep Med 6:238–243PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    IFSO (2014) https://www.ifso.com. Ref Type: Internet Communication. IFSO, Naples
  15. 15.
    Allen J, Dyas J, Jones M (2004) Building consensus in health care: a guide to using the nominal group technique. Br J Community Nurs 9:110–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cartwright RD, Diaz F, Lloyd S (1991) The effects of sleep posture and sleep stage on apnea frequency. Sleep 14:351–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH (1984) Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 74:979–983CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL (1972) The nominal group as a research instrument for exploratory health studies. Am J Public Health 62:337–342CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iber C, Ancoli-Israel S, Chesson AL Jr, Quan SF, for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (2007) The AASM manual for the scoring of sleep and associated events: rules, terminology and technical specifications, 1st edn. American Academy of Sleep Medicine, Westchester, ILGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. H. Frank
    • 1
  • M. J. L. Ravesloot
    • 2
  • J. P. van Maanen
    • 2
  • E. Verhagen
    • 3
  • J. de Lange
    • 1
  • N. de Vries
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical CentreUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck SurgerySint Lucas Andreas ZiekenhuisAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care ResearchVU Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations