Qualitative Assessment of the Effect of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure on the Nasal Cavity.

BACKGROUND: For patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), there is a lack of knowledge regarding the impact of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on the nasal cavity. There is a significant need for evidence-based recommendations regarding the appropriate use of CPAP following endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to translate a previously developed cadaveric model for evaluating CPAP pressures in the sinonasal cavity by showing safety in vivo and quantifying the effect of positive pressurized air flow on the nasal cavity of healthy individuals where physiologic effects are at play. METHODS: A previously validated cadaveric model using intracranial sensor catheters has proved to be a reliable technique for measuring sinonasal pressures. These sensors were placed in the nasal cavity of 18 healthy individuals. Pressure within the nose was recorded at increasing levels of CPAP. RESULTS: Overall, nasal cavity pressure was on average 85% of delivered CPAP. The amount of pressure delivered to the nasal cavity increased as the CPAP increased. The percentage of CPAP delivered was 77% for 5 cmH2O and increased to 89% at 20 cmH2O. There was a significant difference in mean intranasal pressures between all the levels of CPAP except 5 cmH2O and 8 cmH2O (P < .001). CONCLUSION: On average, only 85% of the pressure delivered by CPAP is transmitted to the nasal cavity. Higher CPAP pressures delivered a greater percentage of pressurized air to the nasal cavity floor. Our results are comparable to the cadaver model, which demonstrated similar pressure delivery even in the absence of anatomic factors such as lung compliance, nasal secretions, and edema. This study demonstrates the safety of using sensors in the human nasal cavity. This technology can also be utilized to evaluate the resiliency of various repair techniques for endoscopic skull base surgery with CPAP administration.

Does Insurance Status Impact Delivery of Care with Upper Airway Stimulation for OSA?

OBJECTIVE: To understand differences in patient demographics, insurance-related treatment delays, and average waiting times for Medicare and private insurance patients undergoing upper airway stimulation (UAS) for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all Medicare and private insurance patients undergoing upper airway stimulation (UAS) from 2015 to 2018 at a single academic center. Primary outcomes were insurance-related procedure cancellation rate and time from drug induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) and UAS treatment recommendation to UAS surgery in Medicare versus private insurance patients. RESULTS: In our cohort 207 underwent DISE and were recommended treatment with UAS. Forty-four patients with Medicare and 30 patients with private insurance underwent UAS procedure. Patients with Medicare undergoing UAS were older (67.4 ± 11.1 years) than patients with private insurance (54.9 ± 8.1 years). Medicare patients had a shorter mean wait time of 121.9 ± 75.8 days (range, 15-331 days) from the time of UAS treatment recommendation to UAS surgery when compared to patients with private insurance (201.3 ± 102.2 days; range, 33-477 days). Three patients with Medicare (6.4%) and 8 patients with private insurance (21.1%) were ultimately denied UAS. CONCLUSION: Medicare patients undergoing UAS have shorter waiting periods, fewer insurance-related treatment delays and may experience fewer procedure cancellations when compared to patients with private insurance. The investigational status of UAS by private insurance companies delays care for patients with OSA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.