Apnea Board Forum - CPAP | Sleep Apnea
[Treatment] Treating UARS with CPAP and bilevel - Printable Version

+- Apnea Board Forum - CPAP | Sleep Apnea (http://www.apneaboard.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Public Area (http://www.apneaboard.com/forums/Forum-Public-Area)
+--- Forum: Main Apnea Board Forum (http://www.apneaboard.com/forums/Forum-Main-Apnea-Board-Forum)
+--- Thread: [Treatment] Treating UARS with CPAP and bilevel (/Thread-Treatment-Treating-UARS-with-CPAP-and-bilevel)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38


RE: UARS and APAP - slowriter - 09-11-2019

Is a movement sensor on my garmin wearable (see attached), or the Dreem, likely adequate for detecting the sort of movement you think important, mpers?

I think this plus HR is how the Garmin algorithms calculate sleep stages.

Perhaps not, since the sensors are on wrist, and head, respectively?

[attachment=15389]


RE: UARS and APAP - mper6794 - 09-11-2019

"....and Head, respectively"...
Don't know, you would have to check against your FR/TV/LEAK curves; what do those signs mean.
What i, for sure know very well, is that the audio recorder i told you about, works magnificently! Right yesterday, i revised my recordings (three days were enough to calibrate my curves), hanging the device close to my head or knees (either below or over sheets). If would buy two of them (Head an knees) i suspect, It would be amazing!
BTW, i think i saw some periodicity on your leaks you posted yesterday; hopefuly this could be a biased interpretation.
GL


RE: UARS and APAP - slowriter - 09-11-2019

(09-06-2019, 01:49 PM)slowriter Wrote: Thinking some more, I think I'll take path 2.

Back off to PS 4, and increase by 0.2 only after I have, say, three days in a row of good sleep (without those prominent wake ups you see in the second screenshot), until I get to 6, and then (if I get there), stabilize for a longer period.

Just for the record, in case anyone in the future is reading this thread and wondering:

No, it's not your imagination that I did not follow this "path" very far.

I was basically hypothesizing that PS of 6 would be harder to adjust to, and that I would initially sleep better at a lower setting; hence backing off to 4.

But this turned out not to be the case, so I just raised it to 6. I'll keep it here for awhile, hoping things improve.


RE: UARS and APAP - slowriter - 09-14-2019

What's the proper way to set the Ti values, using the data from the machine (breathing rate and insp time values)? Set Ti Max just above my max, and Ti Min ...?

Resmed titration guide seems to suggest 0.3 and 2.0 for me, based on that breathing rate table.


RE: UARS and APAP - slowriter - 09-17-2019

Just got the report from my titration study back.

A few things of note per previous discussion.
  1. zero reported limb movements, for a PLM index of 0.
  2. only one CA during the study, even at high PS
  3. attaching the graphs that show relationship between PS and RERAs in my case. Quite a lot below 6, and if I read it correctly, still a fair number even at 6? Does this tell me there's room to experiment with even higher PS over time??
[attachment=15552]


RE: UARS and APAP - slowriter - 09-17-2019

(09-17-2019, 10:58 AM)slowriter Wrote: ... if I read it correctly, still a fair number even at 6? ...


Yes, a later tables says 14.5% of the RERAs for the night happened at this PS.


RE: UARS and APAP - Gideon - 09-17-2019

To me it also implies that the RERAs may diminish at the lower levels of PS if that value is held longer.
Look at the arousals, they are fairly consistent except for the periods when RERAs were absent and otherwise seem to be unaffected by PS. Do the tables back this up?


RE: UARS and APAP - slowriter - 09-17-2019

(09-17-2019, 11:13 AM)bonjour Wrote: To me it also implies that the RERAs may diminish at the lower levels of PS if that value is held longer.
Look at the arousals,  they are fairly consistent except for the periods when RERAs were absent and otherwise seem to be unaffected by PS.  Do the tables back this up?

You mean this table? Not sure I totally understand your point, or how to confirm it from the table. Can you please clarify?

[attachment=15554]


RE: UARS and APAP - Gideon - 09-17-2019

The tables don't indicate arousals. As a ROT when posting studies it is usually better to post the entire study. You never know when some one might see something you missed.


RE: UARS and APAP - alexp - 09-17-2019

(09-17-2019, 10:58 AM)slowriter Wrote: Just got the report from my titration study back.

A few things of note per previous discussion.
  1. zero reported limb movements, for a PLM index of 0.
  2. only one CA during the study, even at high PS
  3. attaching the graphs that show relationship between PS and RERAs in my case. Quite a lot below 6, and if I read it correctly, still a fair number even at 6? Does this tell me there's room to experiment with even higher PS over time??

I'm surprised she didn't try it at 7 but after looking at your charts I think I understand why. Most of you RERA at 6 were happening while sleeping on your right side. When you were lying on your back, you RERAs number went down. And you had one central, that's not a lot but maybe her lab protocol is to stop as soon as you experience a central.

And I'm not surprised at the difference between the numbers reported by your machine and what you got from your sleep study. There is just not enough sensors on a CPAP machine to accurately diagnose and report central apneas. That's why they call it clear airways event and not central apnea. I always take this number with a grain of salt.

Central apnea is rare and treatment induced central or complex apnea is most of the time transient. Yet it seems like everyone is experiencing it when you read the forum. I don't buy it. Most of the time is just your body trying to adjust to the therapy. You should check Jason's videos on the subject on YouTube. He's a sleep tech and explains how to interpret your sleepy head results.