PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Marta Raquel Dias Fernandes de Sousa AU - Mafalda Ferreira AU - Fátima Teixeira AU - Joaquim Moita TI - Prospective study to evaluate AutoCPAP accuracy in treating respiratory effort: AutoCPAP vs CPAP AID - 10.1183/23120541.sleepandbreathing-2017.P28 DP - 2017 Apr 01 TA - ERJ Open Research PG - P28 VI - 3 IP - suppl 1 4099 - http://openres.ersjournals.com/content/3/suppl_1/P28.short 4100 - http://openres.ersjournals.com/content/3/suppl_1/P28.full SO - erjor2017 Apr 01; 3 AB - Introduction In our daily practice we have noticed that, particularly when there is a predominance of respiratory effort, AutoCPAP cannot always control patients’ 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±2,8; p=0,001) and in the mean number of RERAs (23,3 ±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±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’ symptoms.