@article {SousaP28, author = {Marta Raquel Dias Fernandes de Sousa and Mafalda Ferreira and F{\'a}tima Teixeira and Joaquim Moita}, title = {Prospective study to evaluate AutoCPAP accuracy in treating respiratory effort: AutoCPAP vs CPAP}, volume = {3}, number = {suppl 1}, elocation-id = {P28}, year = {2017}, doi = {10.1183/23120541.sleepandbreathing-2017.P28}, publisher = {European Respiratory Society}, abstract = {Introduction In our daily practice we have noticed that, particularly when there is a predominance of respiratory effort, AutoCPAP cannot always control patients{\textquoteright} symptoms and they appear to tolerate better a fixed CPAP pressure. However, in the literature, there is no evidence sustaining this observation. So we designed a prospective study to evaluate the best treatment modality for these patients.Methods We included patients with a Respiratory Disturbance Index (RDI) \> 15events/h and Respiratory Rffort-Related Arousals (RERAs) \> 50\% of all the events. They started Auto CPAP S9 and then switched to a fixed CPAP pressure. After 3 months with each modality, all patients performed a polysomnography to evaluate its accuracy in treating respiratory sleep events.Results Seven patients completed the protocol. We observed a significant reduction in RDI (3,9{\textpm}2,8; p=0,001) and in the mean number of RERAs (23,3 {\textpm}13,4; p=0,000) with AutoCPAP, but three patients maintained residual apnea (RDI\>5 events/h). With fixed CPAP there was an additional reduction in the number of RERAs (0.6{\textpm}1.5; p=0,004) and all had a RDI \<5 events/h. Most patients (n=6) improved their symptoms with CPAP and preferred this treatment.Discussion Both modalities were effective in treating respiratory sleep apnea, but CPAP was better at correcting respiratory effort and in controlling patients{\textquoteright} symptoms.}, URL = {https://openres.ersjournals.com/content/3/suppl_1/P28}, eprint = {https://openres.ersjournals.com/content}, journal = {ERJ Open Research} }