Two new tools for assessing patients' knowledge and beliefs about obstructive sleep apnea and continuous positive airway pressure therapy

Background and purpose: Patients' knowledge and beliefs about their illnesses are known to influence a range of health related variables, including treatment compliance. It may, therefore, be important to quantify these variables to assess their impact on compliance, particularly in chronic illnesses such as Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) that rely on self-administered treatments. The aim of this study was to develop two new tools, the Apnea Knowledge Test (AKT) and the Apnea Beliefs Scale (ABS), to assess illness knowledge and beliefs in OSA patients. Patients and methods: The systematic test construction process followed to develop the AKT and the ABS included consultation with sleep experts and OSA patients. The psychometric properties of the AKT and ABS were then investigated in a clinical sample of 81 OSA patients and 33 healthy, non-sleep disordered adults. Results: Results suggest both measures are easily understood by OSA patients, have adequate internal consistency, and are readily accepted by patients. A preliminary investigation of the validity of these tools, conducted by comparing patient data to that of the 33 healthy adults, revealed that apnea patients knew more about OSA, had more positive attitudes towards continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment, and attributed more importance to treating sleep disturbances than non-clinical groups. Conclusions: Overall, the results of psychometric analyses of these tests suggest these measures will be useful clinical tools with numerous beneficial applications, particularly in CPAP compliance studies and apnea education program evaluations. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Pressure support ventilation with the ProSeal (R) laryngeal mask airway. A comparison of sevoflurane, isoflurane and propofol

Background and objective: There are no data about the influence of anaesthetics on cardiovascular variables during pressure support ventilation of the lungs through the laryngeal mask airway. We compared propofol, sevoflurane and isoflurane for maintenance of anaesthesia with the ProSeal (R) laryngeal mask airway during pressure support ventilation. Methods: Sixty healthy adults undergoing peripheral musculo-skeletal surgery were randomized for maintenance with sevoflurane end-tidal 29%, isoflurane end-tidal 1.1% or propofol 6 mg kg(-1) h(-1) in oxygen 33% and air. Pressure support ventilation comprised positive end-expiratory pressure set at 5 cmH(2)O, and pressure support set 5 cmH(2)O above positive end-expiratory pressure. Pressure support was initiated when inspiration produced a 2 cmH(2)O reduction in airway pressure. A blinded observer recorded cardiorespiratory variables (heart rate, mean blood pressure, oxygen saturation, air-way occlusion pressure, respiratory rate, expired tidal volume, expired minute volume and end-tidal CO2), adverse events and emergence times. Results: Respiratory rate and minute volume were 10-21% lower, and end-tidal CO2 6-11% higher with the propofol group compared with the sevoflurane or isoflurane groups, but otherwise cardiorespiratory variables were similar among groups. No adverse events occurred in any group. Emergence times were longer with the propofol group compared with the sevoflurane or isoflurane groups (10 vs. 7 vs. 7 min). Conclusion: Lung ventilation is less effective and emergence times are longer with propofol than sevoflurane or isoflurane for maintenance of anaesthesia during pressure support ventilation with the ProSeal (R) laryngeal mask airway. However, these differences are small and of doubtful clinical importance.