Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Sleep Sci 2023; 16(04): e425-e429
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1776769
Original Article

Performance of the NOSE Questionnaire in Mask Selection for Home CPAP Titration

Magalí Blanco 
1   Sleep and Ventilation Unit, Hospital Britanico, Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires City, Argentina
,
Glenda Ernst
1   Sleep and Ventilation Unit, Hospital Britanico, Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires City, Argentina
,
Alberto Rabino
2   Otorhinolaryngology Department, Hospital Britanico, Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires City, Argentina
,
Alejandro Salvado
1   Sleep and Ventilation Unit, Hospital Britanico, Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires City, Argentina
,
Eduardo Enrique Borsini
1   Sleep and Ventilation Unit, Hospital Britanico, Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires City, Argentina
› Author Affiliations Funding No funds or other benefits were received by investigators or Sleep Unit personnel for developing the protocol or recruiting/following up patients.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Many patients abandon CPAP treatment because they find the mask uncomfortable. Therefore, specialists may benefit from the predictive value of airway assessment tools.

Objective To identify nasal ventilation failure through the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who undergo home-based auto-adjusting CPAP titration and to determine whether there is a correlation between NOSE score and the type of mask selected.

Materials and Methods In this prospective correlational study, the NOSE scale was used in terms of mask selection and titration indicators. Patients were classified based on their NOSE score: > or < 50.

Results We included 303 patients; 226 men (74.5%), BMI: 33.2 ± 6.1 kg/m2, neck circumference (cm): 42.8 ± 3.6 and Epworth (ESS) score: 9.2 ± 5.6, mild OSA: 12 (3.9%), moderate OSA: 127 (41.9%), and severe OSA: 164 (54.1%). The mean NOSE score was 24.3 ± 22.8 and 42 patients (13.8%) had NOSE scores > 50. Indicators for both groups were: compliance (5.9 ± 1.3 vs. 5.8 ± 1.4 hours) p: 0.41, therapeutic pressure (9.1 ± 2.0 vs. 8.8 ± 1.6 cm of H2O) p: 0.23, residual AHI (2.3 ± 1.8 vs. 2.8 ± 2.6 events/hour) p: 0.25, and leaks (20.5 ± 10.6 vs. 21.3 ± 10.7 liters/minute) p: 0.64. According to adjusted multiple regression, a NOSE of > 50 was not a predictor of mask selection.

Conclusions A > 50 NOSE score was not a predictor of mask selection, and it was not correlated to titration performance.

Keywords

Sleep Apnea syndrome - masks - continuous positive airway pressure - nasal obstruction


Publication History

Received: 03 January 2022

Accepted: 31 January 2023

Article published online:
22 November 2023

© 2023. Brazilian Sleep Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Sullivan CE, Issa FG, Berthon-Jones M, Eves L. Reversal of obstructive sleep apnoea by continuous positive airway pressure applied through the nares. Lancet 1981; 1 (8225): 862-865
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gay P, Weaver T, Loube D, Iber C. Positive Airway Pressure Task Force, Standards of Practice Committee, American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Evaluation of positive airway pressure treatment for sleep related breathing disorders in adults. Sleep 2006; 29 (03) 381-401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Weaver TE, Grunstein RR. Adherence to continuous positive airway pressure therapy: the challenge to effective treatment. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2008; 5 (02) 173-178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Weaver TE, Sawyer AM. Adherence to continuous positive airway pressure treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea: implications for future interventions. Indian J Med Res 2010; 131: 245-258
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Shapiro GK, Shapiro CM. Factors that influence CPAP adherence: an overview. Sleep Breath 2010; 14 (04) 323-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kohler M, Smith D, Tippett V, Stradling JR. Predictors of long-term compliance with continuous positive airway pressure. Thorax 2010; 65 (09) 829-832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Blanco M, Ernst G, Salvado A, Borsini E. Impact of Mask Type on the Effectiveness of and Adherence to Unattended Home-Based CPAP Titration. Sleep Disord 2019; 2019: 4592462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lebret M, Arnol N, Martinot JB. et al. Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation Score to Guide Mask Selection in CPAP-Treated Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 159 (03) 590-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Borel JC, Tamisier R, Dias-Domingos S. et al; Scientific Council of The Sleep Registry of the French Federation of Pneumology (OSFP). Type of mask may impact on continuous positive airway pressure adherence in apneic patients. PLoS One 2013; 8 (05) e64382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Inoue A, Chiba S, Matsuura K, Osafune H, Capasso R, Wada K. Nasal function and CPAP compliance. Auris Nasus Larynx 2019; 46 (04) 548-558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yepes-Nuñez JJ, Bartra J, Muñoz-Cano R. et al. Assessment of nasal obstruction: correlation between subjective and objective techniques. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) 2013; 41 (06) 397-401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Blanco M, Schonfeld S. Eduardo Borsini Proceso de selección de máscaras para el tratamiento con CPAP. Revista Fronteras en Medicina 2019; (01) 0029-0035
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Blanco M, Schonfeld S, Borsini E. Selección de máscaras para el tratamiento con CPAP en el síndrome de apneas obstructivas del sueño. Rem Am Med Resp 2020; 1: 1-8
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Larrosa F, Roura J, Dura MJ, Guirao M, Alberti A, Alobid I. Adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) Scale. Rhinology 2015; 53 (02) 176-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar