悬雍垂咽软腭成形术对阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停低通气综合征患者序贯持续气道正压通气治疗的影响

目的探讨悬雍垂咽软腭成形术(UPPP)后,阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停低通气综合征(OSAHS)患者在不同睡眠时相对持续气道正压通气(CPAP)压力耐受性的改变以及双水平气道正压通气(BiPAP)对CPAP治疗失败者的应用价值.方法研究对象为34例UPPP术后的OSAHS患者,其中25例行切除全部悬雍垂及部分软腭的传统UPPP手术,9例行切除部分悬雍垂及部分软腭的改良UPPP手术.对照组为未经治疗的OSAHS患者34例.4例患者于术前及术后均进行了压力耐受情况测试.二组患者的最适CPAP治疗压力(oCPAP)及最大耐受压力(hCPAP)于非快动眼(NREM)及快动眼(REM)睡眠期由人工调定.所有测试均在术后3个月以上进行.对不能耐受CPAP治疗者,应用BiPAP治疗.结果 UPPP术后睡眠呼吸紊乱指数(AHI)改善50%以上者只有8例(28%),28例(82%)患者AHI超过15 次/h,仍需进一步治疗.34例对照者在NREM及REM睡眠期的hCPAP均在17～20 cm H2O(1 cm H2O=0.098 kPa),能够耐受CPAP治疗.34例术后患者在NREM及REM睡眠期的最大耐受压力在11～20 cm H2O的范围内,平均值显著低于对照者(P<0.01).5例患者于NREM及REM睡眠期、1例在REM睡眠期不能耐受CPAP治疗.4例术前及术后均进行测试者中1例在REM睡眠期,1例在REM及NREM睡眠期均难以达到oCPAP治疗压力,序贯CPAP治疗失败.6例CPAP治疗失败的术后患者均进行BiPAP治疗,均能较好地耐受BiPAP治疗.结论UPPP手术切除咽部软组织后可能降低OSAHS患者对序贯CPAP治疗的耐受性.对CPAP治疗失败者,BiPAP是可能的替代治疗手段.

Effects of uvlopalatopharyngoplasty surgery on subsequent continuous positive airway pressure in patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of uvlopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP) therapy on post-surgery continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment during non-rapid eye movement (NREM) and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep in patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS), and to evaluate the use of Bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in whom CPAP therapy failed. METHODS: Thirty-four OSAHS patients after UPPP surgery were tested more than 3 months after the procedure. Among them 25 patients were treated with classical UPPP (cUPPP), in which all of the uvula and part of the soft palate were removed. Nine underwent modified UPPP (mUPPP), keeping part of the uvula. The control group consisted of 34 age, body mass index (BMI) and apnea hypopnea index (AHI) matched, newly diagnosed OSAHS patients without prior treatment. Four patients receiving both pre- and post-surgery tests were included in both groups. A manual titration of CPAP to determine the optimal CPAP pressure (oCPAP) and the highest CPAP pressure (hCPAP) the patient can tolerate was performed during both NREM and REM sleep in all 68 patients. RESULTS: 72% of the UPPP patients had less than 50% decrease in AHI, and 82% of the 34 patients still had AHI > 15 during post-operation PSG test. Hence, most of them needed further therapy. All of the untreated OSAHS patients could tolerate 17-20 cm H2O of CPAP during NREM and REM sleep. None had severe mouth air leak before an oCPAP was reached. In contrast, five in the surgery group failed to respond to CPAP treatment during both NREM and REM sleep, and one more during REM sleep. All of the nine patients who had a mUPPP could tolerate CPAP. One of the four tested both before and after surgery failed to respond to CPAP treatment after surgery during REM sleep and one during both NREM and REM sleep. However, the six patients failed to respond to CPAP treatment tolerated BiPAP therapy well. CONCLUSIONS: In a considerable number of patients with OSAHS, UPPP may compromise the applicability of nasal CPAP as a subsequent therapy, and BiPAP might be a treatment option for patients who could not tolerate CPAP treatment.