ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: In the last decade, hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HNS) has emerged as a therapeutic alternative for patients with obstructive sleep apnea. The original clinical trial cohorts are entering the phase of expected battery depletion (8-12 years). This study aimed to examine the surgical experience with implantable pulse generator (IPG) replacements and the associated long-term therapy outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of patients from the original clinical trial databases (STAR, German post-market) who were followed in the ongoing ADHERE registry. SETTING: International multicenter HNS registry. METHODS: The ADHERE registry and clinical trial databases were cross-referenced to identify the serial numbers of IPGs that were replaced. Data collection included demographics, apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), therapy use, operative times, and adverse events. RESULTS: Fourteen patients underwent IPG replacement 8.3 ± 1.1 years after their initial implantation. Body mass index was unchanged between the original implant and IPG replacement (29 ± 4 vs 28 ± 2 kg/m2 , p = .50). The mean IPG replacement operative time was shorter than the original implant (63 ± 50 vs 154 ± 58 minutes, p < .002); however, 2 patients required stimulation lead replacement which significantly increased operative time. For patients with available AHI and adherence data, the mean change in AHI from baseline to latest follow-up (8.7 ± 1.1 years after de novo implant) was -50.06%, and the mean therapy use was 7.2 hours/night. CONCLUSION: IPG replacement surgery was associated with low complications and shorter operative time. For patients with available outcomes data, adherence and efficacy remained stable after 9 years of follow-up.
Subject(s)
Electric Stimulation Therapy , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive , Humans , Treatment Outcome , Retrospective Studies , Hypoglossal Nerve , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive/therapyABSTRACT
Hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HGNS) has evolved as a novel and effective therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea. Despite positive published outcomes of HGNS, there exist uncertainties regarding proper patient selection, surgical technique, and the reporting of outcomes and individual factors that impact therapy effectiveness. According to current guidelines, this therapy is indicated for select patients, and recommendations are based on the Stimulation Therapy for Apnea Reduction or STAR trial. Ongoing research and physician experiences continuously improve methods to optimize the therapy. An understanding of the way in which airway anatomy, obstructive sleep apnea phenotypes, individual health status, psychological conditions, and comorbid sleep disorders influence the effectiveness of HGNS is essential to improve outcomes and expand therapy indications. This article presents discussions on current evidence, future directions, and research gaps for HGNS therapy from the 10th International Surgical Sleep Society expert research panel. CITATION: Suurna MV, Jacobowitz O, Chang J, et al. Improving outcomes of hypoglossal nerve stimulation therapy: current practice, future directions and research gaps. Proceedings of the 2019 International Sleep Surgery Society Research Forum. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17(12):2477-2487.
Subject(s)
Electric Stimulation Therapy , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive , Humans , Hypoglossal Nerve , Polysomnography , Sleep , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive/therapyABSTRACT
Hypoglossal nerve stimulation for obstructive sleep apnoea; technique, indication and future prospects Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the treatment of first choice in patients with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA); however, 1 in 3 patients does not tolerate CPAP. Upper airway stimulation (UAS) is an alternative for CPAP. This is a new treatment, intended for patients with CPAP intolerance or failure. The muscles responsible for protrusion of the tongue are activated by unilateral stimulation of the hypoglossal nerve, resulting in opening up of the pharynx. Since April 2017, UAS treatment has been reimbursed for a select group of patients by the National Healthcare Institute in the Netherlands, leading to an increase in demand for UAS.
Subject(s)
Electric Stimulation Therapy/methods , Hypoglossal Nerve/physiopathology , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive/therapy , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Humans , Male , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive/physiopathologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The definition of positional obstructive sleep apnea (POSA) is widely accepted as a difference of 50% or more in AHI between supine and non-supine position. Upper airway stimulation (UAS) is an effective treatment for OSA but the implant delivers a single voltage over sleep period without consideration of body position. Clinical practice suggests different outcomes for OSA in supine position under UAS treatment. METHODS: Outcomes of 44 patients were analyzed 12 months after implantation in a two-center, prospective consecutive trial in a university hospital setting. Total night and supine AHI were evaluated and the ratio of time spent in supine was considered. Correlation between the classic and the modified definition of POSA and treatment response were evaluated. RESULTS: The time ratio spent in supine position did not differ before implantation and after 12 months. Total and supine AHI were reduced with the use of UAS therapy (p < 0.001) but both the baseline and final supine AHI were higher than total night AHI. Considering POSA definition as a ratio of supine to non-supine AHI, there was no clear cutoff for defining responders neither with nor without the additional component of time in supine position. CONCLUSIONS: The OSA reduction is strong for the total AHI and supine AHI. Nonetheless, here, there is no cutoff for defining POSA as critical for UAS therapy response. Therefore, there is no evidence for excluding POSA patients from UAS in general. Future technology improvement should take body position and adaptive voltage into account.