Osteopathic Manipulation of the Sphenopalatine Ganglia Versus Sham Manipulation, in Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Syndrom: A Randomised Controlled Trial.

(1) Background: osteopathic manipulation of the sphenopalatine ganglia (SPG) blocks the action of postganglionic sensory fibres. This neuromodulation can reduce nasal obstruction and enhance upper airway stability. We investigated the manipulation of the SPG in 31 patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS); (2) Methods: Randomised, controlled, double-blind, crossover study. Participants received active (AM), then sham manipulation (SM), or vice versa. The primary endpoint was apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI). Secondary endpoints were variation of nasal obstruction evaluated by peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and upper airways stability evaluated by awake critical closing pressure [awake Pcrit]), at 30 min and 24 h. Schirmer's test and pain were assessed immediately post-manipulation. Tactile/gustatory/olfactory/auditory/nociceptive/visual sensations were recorded. Adverse events were collected throughout. (3) Results: SPG manipulation did not reduce AHI (p = 0.670). PNIF increased post-AM but not post-SM at 30 min (AM-SM: 18 [10; 38] L/min, p = 0.0001) and 24 h (23 [10; 30] L/min, p = 0.001). There was no significant difference on awake Pcrit (AM-SM) at 30 min or 24 h). Sensations were more commonly reported post-AM (100% of patients) than post-SM (37%). Few adverse events and no serious adverse events were reported. (4) Conclusions: SPG manipulation is not supported as a treatment for OSAS but reduced nasal obstruction. This effect remains to be confirmed in a larger sample before using this approach to reduce nasal congestion in CPAP-treated patients or in mild OSAS.

Upper airway stabilization by osteopathic manipulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion versus sham manipulation in OSAS patients: a proof-of-concept, randomized, crossover, double-blind, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) is used empirically for the treatment of rhinitis and snoring and is thought to increase pharyngeal stability. This trial was designed to study the effects of this treatment on pharyngeal stability evaluated by critical closing pressure in obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome. METHODS: This single-centre, randomized, crossover, double-blind study compared active manipulation and sham manipulation of the SPG. Randomization was computer-generated. Patients each received one active manipulation and one sham manipulation at an interval of 21 days and were evaluated 30 min and 48 h after each session administered by a qualified osteopath. Neither the patients, nor the investigator performing the evaluations were informed about the order of the two techniques (double-blind). The primary endpoint was the percentage of responding patients presenting increased pharyngeal stability defined by a variation of critical closing pressure (Pcrit) of at least -4 cmH2O at 30 min. Secondary endpoints were the variation of Pcrit in absolute values, sleepiness and snoring. Others endpoints were lacrimation (Schirmer's test), induced pain, sensations experienced during OMT. RESULTS: Ten patients were included and nine (57 [50; 58] years, comprising 7 men, with an apnoea-hypopnoea index of 31.0 [25.5; 33.2]/h; (values are median [quartiles])) were analysed. Seven patients were analysed for the primary endpoint and nine patients were analysed for secondary endpoints. Five patients responded after active manipulation versus no patients after sham manipulation (p = 0.0209). Active manipulation induced more intense pain (p = 0.0089), increased lacrimation (ns) and more tactile, nociceptive and gustatory sensations (13 versus 1) compared to sham manipulation. No significant difference was observed for the other endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Osteopathic manipulative treatment of the SPG may improve pharyngeal stability in obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome. This trial validates the feasibility of the randomized, controlled, double-blind methodology for evaluation of this osteopathic treatment. Studies on a larger sample size must specify the efficacy on the apnoea-hypopnoea index. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered in the clinicaltrial.gov registry under reference NCT01193738 on 1st September 2010 (first inclusion May 19, 2010).

Early diaphragm pacing in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (RespiStimALS): a randomised controlled triple-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurodegenerative disorder associated with respiratory muscle weakness and respiratory failure. Non-invasive ventilation alleviates respiratory symptoms and prolongs life, but is a palliative intervention. Slowing the deterioration of diaphragm function before respiratory failure would be desirable. We aimed to assess whether early diaphragm pacing could slow down diaphragm deterioration and would therefore delay the need for non-invasive ventilation. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, controlled, triple-blind trial in patients with probable or definite ALS in 12 ALS centres in France. The main inclusion criterion was moderate respiratory involvement (forced vital capacity 60-80% predicted). Other key eligibility criteria were age older than 18 years and bilateral responses of the diaphragm to diagnostic phrenic stimulation. All patients were operated laparoscopically and received phrenic stimulators. Clinicians randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive either active or sham stimulation with a central web-based randomisation system (computer-generated list). Investigators, patients, and an external outcome allocation committee were masked to treatment. The primary outcome was non-invasive ventilation-free survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety outcomes were also assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01583088. FINDINGS: Between Sept 27, 2012, and July 8, 2015, 74 participants were randomly assigned to receive either active (n=37) or sham (n=37) stimulation. On July 16, 2015, an unplanned masked analysis was done after another trial showed excess mortality with diaphragm pacing in patients with hypoventilation (DiPALS, ISRCTN 53817913). In view of this finding, we analysed mortality in our study and found excess mortality (death from any cause) in our active stimulation group. We therefore terminated the study on July, 16, 2015. Median non-invasive ventilation-free survival was 6·0 months (95% CI 3·6-8·7) in the active stimulation group versus 8·8 months (4·2-not reached) in the control (sham stimulation) group (hazard ratio 1·96 [95% CI 1·08-3·56], p=0·02). Serious adverse events (mainly capnothorax or pneumothorax, acute respiratory failure, venous thromboembolism, and gastrostomy) were frequent (24 [65%] patients in the active stimulation group vs 22 [59%] patients in the control group). No treatment-related death was reported. INTERPRETATION: Early diaphragm pacing in patients with ALS and incipient respiratory involvement did not delay non-invasive ventilation and was associated with decreased survival. Diaphragm pacing is not indicated at the early stage of the ALS-related respiratory involvement. FUNDING: Hospital Program for Clinical Research, French Ministry of Health; French Patients' Association for ALS Research (Association pour la Recherche sur la Sclérose Latérale Amyotrophique); and Thierry de Latran Foundation.