[News] Washington Post Article

[Maskup N. Sleepwell]

I'd guess it is not as black and white as putting a number of hours on it. The more you use it, theoretically the more the benefit. You also have have all kinds of variables that come into play as well. Age, weight, health, untreated AHI, treated AHI, I could go on forever. It's a fuzzy thing. Don't know how deep down the rabbit hole these researchers went, but it sounds like they only stuck there tow over the edge ...

[0rangebear]

Is there some scientific study that indicates 6 hours will provide benefit?

This study of positive airway pressure for 3.3 hour only confirms what I have red in numerous other studies that 4 hours per night is the minimum use to see any benefit.

I have attached links to studies that show some benefit @ >4 hours and the more benefits with longer use @ 5 hours and 6 hours. I believe there is plenty of empirical evidence that the formula (4 hours a night for 21 our of 30 days) was arrived at scientifically, and this study posted by sleepster and the one last month in thread

http://www.apneaboard.com/forums/Thread-...cpap-users

just reinforces the formula as the minimum use for effective therapy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27568799
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27198943
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22983957

[Sleepster]

I understand that 3.3 hours of CPAP usage provides no benefit.

The study demonstrates that 3.3 hours of use is not enough, statistically, to show a decreased risk of heart attack.

Does anyone know what is the minimum usage that will provide a benefit?

A series of studies might show that there is a minimum amount of time needed to achieve, statistically, a reduced risk of heart attack. Any amount of time over that might then show a further reduction, statistically, in the risk of a heart attack.

But here's the thing. Why would anyone be interested in reducing their risk by anything less than the maximum amount possible? And how does one get that maximum reduction in the likelihood of a heart attack? By using the machine every time you sleep, all the time you're sleeping.

[GP49]

Sloppy "journalism" but no worse than what one gets every day on TV news. The sad part is how many people believe TV news.

[richb]

Thanks for the response. Is there some scientific study that indicates 6 hours will provide benefit? Your answer sounds like a "best guess" but it is unclear that there is medical proof to support this. I am coming up to my annual checkup and would hope the results will show some benefit for my efforts. But unclear how to measure that.

Install the Sleepyhead software so you can get a look at your own therapy. You are the one that your treatment is all about. Your Doctor may only look at your average nightly use and your average AHI. Your Doctor may not provide much feedback before moving on to the next patient. If you know what is going on with your treatment you can ask good questions.

Rich

[PaytonA]

Sloppy "journalism" but no worse than what one gets every day on TV news. The sad part is how many people believe TV news.

It is not just sloppy journalism but faulty science spurred on in part by the "publish or perish" attitude common in the scientific community. The supposedly peer reviewed original article was a good example of crap science. The original "scientific" article should never have been written let alone published.

Please excuse my rant but this type of junk makes my blood boil.

Best Regards,

PaytonA

[Albercook]

This WAPO article has a title that grabbed my interest and challenged my beliefs. But in the fifth paragraph from the end the challenge seems to disappear with this comment:

One possibility raised in both the study and an accompanying editorial is that the CPAP group was able to wear the masks only about 3.3 hours per night, a duration that is consistent with CPAP users in the real world.

How the heck can 3.3 hours of use per night be expected to do anything other than prolong the agony of a sleep-deprived life! And what real world is it that they're living in? It sure ain't the same one I'm in.

Sounds like a case of the average being the wrong number to use. The average number of hours of use per night for some "real world" may indeed be 3.3 hours. The problem is that is the average of two groups. One groups wears their CPAP and gets say 8 hours a night and another group that does not wear it at all. By grouping these two together the researchers hope to get a "real world" result but all they get is a meaningless result.

[tedgreen]

I disagree: sleeping properly for 4 hours per night while wearing CPAP is surely better than sleeping poorly with no CPAP at all.

I am still struggling to do a full night with CPAP on. I usually only do 4 hours on average with CPAP on, and still feel better in the morning/more refreshed...

[kwhenrykerr]

If your body is in need of oxygen and unable to get rid of waste gasses it has an effect. The longer it goes on or the more it happens has an effect.

All the cpap does is help if you use it when needed. Do you know when you need it ?

My reports show that I need it more later in the night. I use it all night long.

As for poor studied and new reporting, we all get way too much of it.

Read, understand and learn what works for you. This forum has lots of information.

[JamesW]

Over the last 12 months my average daily (nightly) use has been 7h 30 mins. Sometimes longer and sometimes less, but never shorter than 6 hours. And, that is on rare occasions. My position is that if you expect the therapy to do you good, then the 6 hours minimum should be the goal. Each one of us will have a slightly different outcome, and my GP has other patients on CPAP who use it far less per night on average than I do. My sleep specialist reinforced to me from the start that the 6 hour minimum should be the benchmark. Easy for me and some others,  but not for all I'm afraid.

James