RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica , Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono , Humanos , Nervo Hipoglosso , Polissonografia , Sono , Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono/terapiaAssuntos
Cirurgia Bariátrica , Pressão Positiva Contínua nas Vias Aéreas , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Obesidade/cirurgia , Placas Oclusais , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Otorrinolaringológicos , Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono/terapia , Humanos , Nervo Hipoglosso , Obesidade/complicações , Ortodontia Corretiva , Cooperação do Paciente , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto , Posicionamento do Paciente , Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono/etiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Many patients scheduled for elective surgery are referred for a preoperative medical consultation. Only limited data are available on factors associated with preoperative consultations. The authors hypothesized that surgical specialty contributes to variation in referrals for preoperative consultations. METHODS: This is a cohort study using data from Group Health Cooperative, an integrated healthcare system. The authors included 13,673 patients undergoing a variety of common procedures-primarily low-risk surgeries-representing six surgical specialties, in 2005-2006. The authors identified consultations by family physicians, general internists, pulmonologists, or cardiologists in the 42 days preceding surgery. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between surgical specialty and consultation, adjusting for potential confounders including the revised cardiac risk index, age, gender, Deyo comorbidity index, number of prescription medications, and 11 medication classes. RESULTS: The authors found that 3,063 (22%) of all patients had preoperative consultations, with significant variation by surgical specialty. Patients having ophthalmologic, orthopedic, or urologic surgery were more likely to have consultations compared with those having general surgery-adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) of 3.8 (3.3-4.2), 1.5 (1.3-1.7), and 2.3 (1.8-2.8), respectively. Preoperative consultations were more common in patients with lower revised cardiac risk scores. CONCLUSION: There is substantial practice variation among surgical specialties with regard to the use of preoperative consultations in this integrated healthcare system. Given the large number of consultations provided for patients with low cardiac risk and for patients presenting for low-risk surgeries, their indications, the financial burden, and cost-effectiveness of consultations deserve further study.