Points well taken, SleepRider. I can see you're looking out for me, and I appreciate it.
I was getting such extreme leaks that it was hard to evaluate treatment or events (over 24L for over 50% of the night). I was frustrated, waking up constantly, and sleepless. I am doing much better than I was, thanks to my little leak vs. pressure experiment, not at all frustrated, and a lot more confident, but may well not be treated with the current machine.
I mentioned the lengthy events to my sleep specialist, and she was quite startled, especially after I pointed out that I had an exceptionally long one during my sleep study and no one said anything about it.
The Sleep Center isn't blaming me for the leaks: they're trying to help me sort it out. They did help me figure out a mask that doesn't leak so much. I wouldn't have thought to try that model. I was very okay with our one-month meeting. I have a follow-up in December.
I am taking Spy Car's lead that this process moves slowly....
---------
Yo, now I'm looking at a piece of my sleep study (diagnostic, no titration), and I didn't have any full-fledged obstructive apneas, only hypopneas, mixeds, and centrals, if I'm reading that right.
And there's the 77.2 second event. That's nuts. Even the mean duration of hypopneas seems on the nutty side. 50% (61!) of them were over 31 seconds?
SleepRider, could those hypopneas have been central in origin?
Does a sleep study evaluate for OSA vs. CA in a hypopnea? So what this doc is counting as obstructive hypopneas (and thereby the diagnosis of OSA) may actually be central in origin?
There was a whole lot cuckoo about this sleep study, but maybe even this much data should have predicted a different treatment.