Sleep Apnea Syndromes: Littner MR

Kushida CA, Littner MR, Hirshkowitz M, Morgenthaler TI, Alessi CA, Bailey D, Boehlecke B, Brown TM, Coleman J, Friedman L, Kapen S, Kapur VK, Kramer M, Lee-Chiong T, Owens J, Pancer JP, Swick TJ, Wise MS, Anonymous00039. · Stanford University Center of Excellence for Sleep Disorders, Stanford, CA, USA. · Sleep. · Pubmed #16553024 No free full text.

Abstract: Positive airway pressure (PAP) devices are used to treat patients with sleep related breathing disorders (SRBD) including obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Currently, PAP devices come in three forms: (1) continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), (2) bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP), and (3) automatic self-adjusting positive airway pressure (APAP). After a patient is diagnosed with OSA, the current standard of practice involves performing full, attended polysomnography during which positive pressure is adjusted to determine optimal pressure for maintaining airway patency. This titration is used to find a fixed single pressure for subsequent nightly usage. A task force of the Standards of Practice Committee of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine reviewed the available literature. Based on this review, the Standards of Practice Committee developed these practice parameters as a guideline for using CPAP and BPAP appropriately (an earlier review and practice parameters for APAP was published in 2002). Major conclusions and current recommendations are as follows: 1) A diagnosis of OSA must be established by an acceptable method. 2) CPAP is effective for treating OSA. 3) Full-night, attended studies performed in the laboratory are the preferred approach for titration to determine optimal pressure; however, split-night, diagnostic-titration studies are usually adequate. 4) CPAP usage should be monitored objectively to help assure utilization. 5) Initial CPAP follow-up is recommended during the first few weeks to establish utilization pattern and provide remediation if needed. 6) Longer-term follow-up is recommended yearly or as needed to address mask, machine, or usage problems. 7) Heated humidification and a systematic educational program are recommended to improve CPAP utilization. 8) Some functional outcomes such as subjective sleepiness improve with positive pressure treatment in patients with OSA. 9) CPAP and BPAP therapy are safe; side effects and adverse events are mainly minor and reversible. 10) BPAP may be useful in treating some forms of restrictive lung disease or hypoventilation syndromes associated with hypercapnia.

Kushida CA, Morgenthaler TI, Littner MR, Alessi CA, Bailey D, Coleman J, Friedman L, Hirshkowitz M, Kapen S, Kramer M, Lee-Chiong T, Owens J, Pancer JP, Anonymous00038. · Stanford University Center of Excellence for Sleep Disorders, CA, USA. · Sleep. · Pubmed #16494092 No free full text.

Abstract: These practice parameters are an update of the previously published recommendations regarding use of oral appliances in the treatment of snoring and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA). Oral appliances (OAs) are indicated for use in patients with mild to moderate OSA who prefer them to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy, or who do not respond to, are not appropriate candidates for, or who fail treatment attempts with CPAP. Until there is higher quality evidence to suggest efficacy, CPAP is indicated whenever possible for patients with severe OSA before considering OAs. Oral appliances should be fitted by qualified dental personnel who are trained and experienced in the overall care of oral health, the temporomandibular joint, dental occlusion and associated oral structures. Follow-up polysomnography or an attended cardiorespiratory (Type 3) sleep study is needed to verify efficacy, and may be needed when symptoms of OSA worsen or recur. Patients with OSA who are treated with oral appliances should return for follow-up office visits with the dental specialist at regular intervals to monitor patient adherence, evaluate device deterioration or maladjustment, and to evaluate the health of the oral structures and integrity of the occlusion. Regular follow up is also needed to assess the patient for signs and symptoms of worsening OSA. Research to define patient characteristics more clearly for OA acceptance, success, and adherence is needed.

Kushida CA, Littner MR, Morgenthaler T, Alessi CA, Bailey D, Coleman J, Friedman L, Hirshkowitz M, Kapen S, Kramer M, Lee-Chiong T, Loube DL, Owens J, Pancer JP, Wise M. · Stanford University Center of Excellence for Sleep Disorders, Stanford, CA, USA. · Sleep. · Pubmed #16171294 No free full text.

Abstract: These practice parameters are an update of the previously-published recommendations regarding the indications for polysomnography and related procedures in the diagnosis of sleep disorders. Diagnostic categories include the following: sleep related breathing disorders, other respiratory disorders, narcolepsy, parasomnias, sleep related seizure disorders, restless legs syndrome, periodic limb movement sleep disorder, depression with insomnia, and circadian rhythm sleep disorders. Polysomnography is routinely indicated for the diagnosis of sleep related breathing disorders; for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) titration in patients with sleep related breathing disorders; for the assessment of treatment results in some cases; with a multiple sleep latency test in the evaluation of suspected narcolepsy; in evaluating sleep related behaviors that are violent or otherwise potentially injurious to the patient or others; and in certain atypical or unusual parasomnias. Polysomnography may be indicated in patients with neuromuscular disorders and sleep related symptoms; to assist in the diagnosis of paroxysmal arousals or other sleep disruptions thought to be seizure related; in a presumed parasomnia or sleep related seizure disorder that does not respond to conventional therapy; or when there is a strong clinical suspicion of periodic limb movement sleep disorder. Polysomnography is not routinely indicated to diagnose chronic lung disease; in cases of typical, uncomplicated, and noninjurious parasomnias when the diagnosis is clearly delineated; for patients with seizures who have no specific complaints consistent with a sleep disorder; to diagnose or treat restless legs syndrome; for the diagnosis of circadian rhythm sleep disorders; or to establish a diagnosis of depression.

Littner MR, Kushida C, Wise M, Davila DG, Morgenthaler T, Lee-Chiong T, Hirshkowitz M, Daniel LL, Bailey D, Berry RB, Kapen S, Kramer M, Anonymous00029. · VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, CA, USA. · Sleep. · Pubmed #15700727 No free full text.

Abstract: Characterization of excessive sleepiness is an important task for the sleep clinician, and assessment requires a thorough history and in many cases, objective assessment in the sleep laboratory. These practice parameters were developed to guide the sleep clinician on appropriate clinical use of the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT), and the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT). These recommendations replace those published in 1992 in a position paper produced by the American Sleep Disorders Association. A Task Force of content experts was appointed by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine to perform a comprehensive review of the scientific literature and grade the evidence regarding the clinical use of the MSLT and the MWT. Practice parameters were developed based on this review and in most cases evidence based methods were used to support recommendations. When data were insufficient or inconclusive, the collective opinion of experts was used to support recommendations. These recommendations were developed by the Standards of Practice Committee and reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. The MSLT is indicated as part of the evaluation of patients with suspected narcolepsy and may be useful in the evaluation of patients with suspected idiopathic hypersomnia. The MSLT is not routinely indicated in the initial evaluation and diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, or in assessment of change following treatment with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). The MSLT is not routinely indicated for evaluation of sleepiness in medical and neurological disorders (other than narcolepsy), insomnia, or circadian rhythm disorders. The MWT may be indicated in assessment of individuals in whom the inability to remain awake constitutes a safety issue, or in patients with narcolepsy or idiopathic hypersomnia to assess response to treatment with medications. There is little evidence linking mean sleep latency on the MWT with risk of accidents in real world circumstances. For this reason, the sleep clinician should not rely solely on mean sleep latency as a single indicator of impairment or risk for accidents, but should also rely on clinical judgment. Assessment should involve integration of findings from the clinical history, compliance with treatment, and, in some cases, objective testing using the MWT. These practice parameters also include recommendations for the MSLT and MWT protocols, a discussion of the normative data available for both tests, and a description of issues that need further study.

Littner MR. · No affiliation provided · Chest. · Pubmed #12628854 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Littner MR. · VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, VA Medical Center (111P) Bldg. 200, 16111 Plummer Street, Sepulveda, CA 91343, USA. · Semin Respir Crit Care Med. · Pubmed #16052418 No free full text.

Abstract: Portable monitors are classified into three levels (Level II, III, and IV) with decreasing measurements of sleep and respiratory variables. A full overnight sleep study with respiratory measurements and sleep staging (polysomnography) unattended by a sleep technician is Level II, three or more respiratory channels and heart rate generally without sleep staging either attended or unattended is Level III, and one or two channels attended or unattended, usually including oximetry, is Level IV. To date, some Level III portable monitors appear to have sufficient specificity to diagnose the obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) syndrome but are not sufficiently sensitive to exclude OSA. Attended portable monitoring appears to provide better sensitivity and specificity than unattended portable monitoring and is an option for diagnosis of OSA. The role of portable monitoring is evolving but at this time cannot substitute for attended polysomnography as a standalone approach. The exact place of portable monitoring and the cost-benefit depends on local circumstances and cannot be generalized at this time.

Flemons WW, Littner MR, Rowley JA, Gay P, Anderson WM, Hudgel DW, McEvoy RD, Loube DI. · Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. · Chest. · Pubmed #14555592 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Littner MR. · David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 91343 CA, USA. · J Clin Sleep Med. · Pubmed #17561592 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Flemons WW, Littner MR. · Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. · Chest. · Pubmed #14555591 links to  free full text

Abstract: There is growing interest in using portable monitoring for investigating patients with suspected sleep apnea. Research studies typically report portable monitoring results in comparison with the results of sleep laboratory-based polysomnography. A systematic review of this research has recently been completed by a joint working group of the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Thoracic Society, and the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. The methods for comparing the results of portable monitors and polysomnography include product-moment correlation, intraclass correlation, mean differences/limits of agreement, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. Each approach has advantages and limitations, which are highlighted in this review.

Friedlander AH, Friedlander IK, Yueh R, Littner MR. · Dentistry Veterans Affairs Southern California System of Clinics, Sepulveda 91343, USA. · J Oral Maxillofac Surg. · Pubmed #10319824 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: Persons with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) suffer inordinately high rates of stroke, but the cause remains in doubt. Atherosclerosis (atheroma formation) of the extracranial carotid artery has been suggested as a possible cause. Because atheromas can be recognized on panoramic radiographs, this study compared their prevalence in subjects with OSAS and normal controls and analyzed their relation to atherogenic risk factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Panoramic radiographs and medical records of 54 male subjects (mean age, 60.4 years) with OSAS (apnea/hypopnea index [AHI] of 15 or greater and a history of snoring and excessive daytime sleepiness) were assessed for atheromas and risk factors. Age-matched controls were likewise assessed. RESULTS: Twelve individuals (22%) with OSAS showed atheromas on their radiographs. The radiographs of the controls showed that 3.7% had atheromas. This finding was statistically significant (P = .0079). The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus among individuals with OSAS and atheroma formation (7 of 12 persons, 58%) was far greater than the prevalence of diabetes (10 of 42 persons, 24%) experienced by individuals with OSAS but free of atheroma formation. This finding was also statistically significant (P = .035). The lesions seen in both the subject and control populations were similar and were located in the neck, 1.5 to 2.5 cm inferior-posterior to the angle of the mandible. CONCLUSIONS: Persons with OSAS are more likely to manifest calcified atheromas on their panoramic radiographs than age-matched controls. Type 2 diabetes is significantly more prevalent in individuals with both OSAS and calcified atheromas.