Scholarlink

Background <p>Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is associated with increasing body mass index (BMI) and affects up to 15% of pregnant women. OSA in pregnancy can be associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) may be an effective treatment for OSA during pregnancy.</p> Aim <p>To examine the feasibility and acceptability of screening women with a BMI ≥ 35&#xa0;kg/m<sup>2</sup> for OSA in pregnancy, followed by randomisation to treatment with CPAP or no CPAP for women diagnosed with moderate to severe OSA.</p> Methods <p>This study was a single-centre, two-stage pilot study. Firstly, all consenting participants were screened for OSA and then, only if diagnosed with moderate to severe OSA (<i>AHI</i> ≥ 15), randomised to CPAP or no CPAP. The feasibility of the OSA screening was determined by recruitment rates. A priori criteria of &gt; 20% recruitment to the sleep study were considered feasible. The acceptability of the sleep study was examined using the completion rate and reasons for withdrawal prior to the sleep study. The acceptability of CPAP randomisation was assessed by completion rates for women randomised, adherence to CPAP, reasons for withdrawal, and the review of quality-of-life measures over the course of pregnancy.</p> Results <p>Ninety-six women with a BMI ≥ 35&#xa0;kg/m<sup>2</sup> before 26 completed weeks of pregnancy were invited to participate from the Sunshine Coast University Hospital and Health Service. Overall, 36 women enrolled, giving a recruitment rate of 37%. A total of 75% (<i>n</i> = 26) of recruited women completed OSA screening (clinical history, questionnaires, and formal sleep study). Subsequently, six (6%) of invited women had an apnoea hypopnoea index (AHI) ≥ 15/h and were diagnosed with moderate to severe OSA and underwent randomisation to receive treatment with CPAP (<i>n</i> = 4) or no CPAP (<i>n</i> = 1) until birth. One woman withdrew after randomisation to treatment. Nine women withdrew prior to full completion of OSA screening and one following an inconclusive sleep study. Women who had a sleep study found it acceptable, and in women randomised to CPAP, adherence averaged 4.86&#xa0;h/night. Quality-of-life measures were similar when measured over two time points in pregnancy.</p> Discussion <p>A definitive trial screening women for OSA and subsequent randomisation to treatment or no treatment may be feasible. Future trials should be resourced to expand inclusion criteria, improve accessibility for participants, evaluate clinical and cost-effectiveness, and investigate partial treatment effects.</p> Trial registration <p>ACTRN, ACTRN12621001523897. Registered 9 September 2021 — retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Update/Step8_Update.aspx?id=382640.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Continuous positive airway pressure versus usual care for obstructive sleep apnoea in pregnancy: a two-step pilot trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月5日

查看全文
  • Rachael Nugent,
  • Caroline de Costa,
  • Leonie Callaway,
  • Shiv Erigadoo,
  • Elise Gilbertson,
  • Chris Brown,
  • Joanna Perry-Keene,
  • Rebekah Shakhovskoy,
  • Lauren Kearney

摘要

Background

Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is associated with increasing body mass index (BMI) and affects up to 15% of pregnant women. OSA in pregnancy can be associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) may be an effective treatment for OSA during pregnancy.

Aim

To examine the feasibility and acceptability of screening women with a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 for OSA in pregnancy, followed by randomisation to treatment with CPAP or no CPAP for women diagnosed with moderate to severe OSA.

Methods

This study was a single-centre, two-stage pilot study. Firstly, all consenting participants were screened for OSA and then, only if diagnosed with moderate to severe OSA (AHI ≥ 15), randomised to CPAP or no CPAP. The feasibility of the OSA screening was determined by recruitment rates. A priori criteria of > 20% recruitment to the sleep study were considered feasible. The acceptability of the sleep study was examined using the completion rate and reasons for withdrawal prior to the sleep study. The acceptability of CPAP randomisation was assessed by completion rates for women randomised, adherence to CPAP, reasons for withdrawal, and the review of quality-of-life measures over the course of pregnancy.

Results

Ninety-six women with a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 before 26 completed weeks of pregnancy were invited to participate from the Sunshine Coast University Hospital and Health Service. Overall, 36 women enrolled, giving a recruitment rate of 37%. A total of 75% (n = 26) of recruited women completed OSA screening (clinical history, questionnaires, and formal sleep study). Subsequently, six (6%) of invited women had an apnoea hypopnoea index (AHI) ≥ 15/h and were diagnosed with moderate to severe OSA and underwent randomisation to receive treatment with CPAP (n = 4) or no CPAP (n = 1) until birth. One woman withdrew after randomisation to treatment. Nine women withdrew prior to full completion of OSA screening and one following an inconclusive sleep study. Women who had a sleep study found it acceptable, and in women randomised to CPAP, adherence averaged 4.86 h/night. Quality-of-life measures were similar when measured over two time points in pregnancy.

Discussion

A definitive trial screening women for OSA and subsequent randomisation to treatment or no treatment may be feasible. Future trials should be resourced to expand inclusion criteria, improve accessibility for participants, evaluate clinical and cost-effectiveness, and investigate partial treatment effects.

Trial registration

ACTRN, ACTRN12621001523897. Registered 9 September 2021 — retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Update/Step8_Update.aspx?id=382640.