(03-15-2015, 08:34 PM)vsheline Wrote: ...
If 191 events represented an RDI of 43 events per hour, then you would have slept about 4.44 hrs. 7 CA events in 4.44 hrs would have represented about 1.6 CA events per hour, which is regarded in the medical community as an insignificant amount...
I'm glad you posted, Vaughn, because you understand RDI better than most of us.
What is somewhat new information (at least to me) is that rather than a simple hourly index, they noted the increase during REM (which if the sleep hours are correct, means a lower than 43 AHI during non-REM).
But I am most curious about the large number of hypops, and what that means for the therapy, and for which sort of machine AirSign should be getting.
I have to admit it is a little hard to read between the lines and give a good assessment of what might be going on here; AirSign seems to be pointed in the right direction, but I question whether the sleep doc is really on the ball here according to other things reported. There seems to be a disconnect: there was a full titration done, but only part of that was reported to the patient, for instance. AirSign is left in the dark. Maybe I am too concerned, but the feeling I get is that the red tape with the PSG might just be the tip of the iceberg here; there are other indicators supporting a disconnect between doc and patient and the understanding that they should be providing to AirSign.
If I had the elevated hypops, I would be wanting to know exactly why the doc is recommending what he is recommending, both for the therapy and choice of new machine. I would be waterboarding someone for better answers. And the ONLY reason why is because I now know, from coming here, that elevated hypops are not a normal or common SA diagnosis, and might need a particular therapy a little different from classic CPAP or APAP. The scary part about that is that if I did not know this, I would be whistling right through the graveyard thinking everything was fine, and if the doc drops the ball, I'd never know.
It sort of bothers me when docs treat patients in a way that seems to want to motivate the patient to find the answers on their own. True, patients should indeed be trying to learn all they can, but the docs should be the first, best resource for that education, not some entity-on-high that makes them feel like they have to get a plier and pull their fingernails out to get the answers they deserve.
It's the responsibility of the doc, not the patient, to get the therapy right. God help those who do not take the level of interest that AirSign is taking, or don't know any better that they should.
Maybe my reaction is misplaced and I'm way off base. Or maybe my reaction is a universal reaction to universal poor treatment of patients by the med community. Maybe it hits home. Maybe a little of each. Probably not fair to use AirSign as the poster-child example of treatment practice that irks me here, but this hits what I think might be a common nerve ending. (stepping off soapbox, for now...back to the main issue).