I have just two quick comments:

1) Some people are CPAP intolerant.  CPAP is not 100% successful.  It doesn't work for everybody.
2) OSA and its treatment are relatively young fields of study.

Anonymous wrote:

guest vintage67,

Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to see one research study showing that the suggested alternative, 5-HTP, significantly improves the sleep apnea condition (lowers AHI) in humans.

Good luck to you.

Yes.  You missed it.  I posted many studies showing that the supplement I won't name increases a neurotransmitter I won't name shown to improve airway patency and reduce apnea.

Drowning blocks oxygen.  Lack of oxygen causes death.  Removal from the water from the lungs restores oxygen flow.  Do you need a study to show that removal from the water during drowning can prevent death?

[quote="thewriteone"]
From Web MD

October 08, 2007
Continuous-positive-airway-pressure-CPAP-for-obstructive-sleep-apnea
WebMD Home  Sleep Disorders Health Center  Sleep Apnea Health Center

Why It Is Done
CPAP is the most effective nonsurgical treatment for obstructive sleep apnea. It is the first treatment choice and the most widely used.[quote]

I think that this confirms what people have been posting.

Long-term Effects of Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Sleep Apnea Syndrome*
Liam S. Doherty, MD; John L. Kiely, MD; Valerie Swan, RgN and Walter T. McNicholas, MD, FCCP
* From the Respiratory Sleep Disorders Unit, St. Vincent’s University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.


Correspondence to: Walter McNicholas, MD, FCCP, Department of Respiratory Medicine, St. Vincent’s University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland; e-mail: walter.mcnicholas@ucd.ie

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality, principally from cardiovascular disease, but the impact of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy is unclear.

Methods: We performed a long-term follow-up study of 168 patients with OSAS who had begun receiving CPAP therapy at least 5 years previously, most of whom had been prospectively followed up, having been the subject of an earlier report on cardiovascular risk factors in OSAS patients. The average follow-up period was 7.5 years. We compared the cardiovascular outcomes of those patients who were intolerant of CPAP (untreated group, 61 patients) with those continuing CPAP therapy (107 patients).

Results: CPAP-treated patients had a higher median apnea-hypopnea index score than the untreated group (48.3 [interquartile range (IQR), 33.6 to 66.4] vs 36.7 [IQR, 27.4 to 55], respectively; p = 0.02), but age, body mass index, and time since diagnosis were similar. Deaths from cardiovascular disease were more common in the untreated group than in the CPAP-treated group during follow-up (14.8% vs 1.9%, respectively; p = 0.009 [log rank test]), but no significant differences were found in the development of new cases of hypertension, cardiac disorder, or stroke. Total cardiovascular events (ie, death and new cardiovascular disease combined) were more common in the untreated group than in the CPAP-treated group (31% vs 18%, respectively; p < 0.05

Apnea treatment lowers cardiovascular risk but CPAP treatment results in increased apnea-hypopnea index vs. untreated patients.  In other words, you use it, you apnea gets worse while your symptoms get better.  CPAP is a one way ticket.

[quote="Anonymous"][quote="thewriteone"]
From Web MD

October 08, 2007
Continuous-positive-airway-pressure-CPAP-for-obstructive-sleep-apnea
WebMD Home  Sleep Disorders Health Center  Sleep Apnea Health Center

Why It Is Done
CPAP is the most effective nonsurgical treatment for obstructive sleep apnea. It is the first treatment choice and the most widely used.

Quote:

I think that this confirms what people have been posting.

Yes.  It is the first choice and the most widely used.  And almost 50% of sufferers who are desperate enough to undergo the sleep study manage to comply (compliance counted as at least four hours of use every other night).

Of course, research is being done (slowly because the findings are unlikely to be marketable) that suggests there are superior alternatives waiting to be found.

Seems like a lot of people don't want them found though, because they have too much invested in having to use CPAP.  As I was told, most people go through a desperate search for alternatives.  Strangely they seem offended that someone else might have found a possible solution for at least some sufferers.

I guess this man who fell and sustained a mild facial injury didn't know there were no risks.  (Subcutaneous emphysema is a VERY serious illness, definitely not associated with minor bruises--more like gunshots.  Pneumocephalus doesn't sounds appealing either.)


Unusual complication of nasal CPAP: subcutaneous emphysema following facial trauma.Kramer NR, Fine MD, McRae RG, Millman RP.
Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.

Subcutaneous emphysema is an unusual complication of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). We report a case of a 58-year-old man who fell and sustained mild facial trauma to the left side of his head. After using CPAP the following night, he developed diffuse subcutaneous emphysema of his face and left neck. He discontinued CPAP, and his symptoms improved. The potential mechanisms of this patient's subcutaneous emphysema and the prior reports of this complication following facial trauma or dental procedure without use of CPAP are reviewed. Although there are case reports of bacterial meningitis and pneumocephalus following use of nasal CPAP, we are not aware of any prior reports of subcutaneous emphysema following use of CPAP. In light of our experience and the above related case reports, we would suggest nasal CPAP be withheld temporarily in the setting of acute facial trauma.

I snore terribly during the night to the point my spoce makes me sleep on the couch alot i have a sleep study schedualed but does it sound like i have a sleeping disorder

Quote:

(ie, death and new cardiovascular disease combined) were more common in the untreated group than in the CPAP-treated group

Quote:

Apnea treatment lowers cardiovascular risk but CPAP treatment results in increased apnea-hypopnea index vs. untreated patients. In other words, you use it, you apnea gets worse while your symptoms get better. CPAP is a one way ticket.

I'll take the increased AHI verses the death.  CPAP is proven, I will support those on this forum who use a proven treatment whatever it may be, as long as it is medically prescribed.  For me, CPAP is a one way ticket to a longer life.

If a pill is the same as eating

Quote:

you can get the same chemicals lying on the beach all day eating bananas, turkey on whole wheat, and drinking milk.

then stick to the diet.  If it is included in baby formula then drink mothers milk.

It does not appear the CPAP Bible is being thrown on this forum.  It seems it is more help, support and encouragement to continue with the medically prescribed treatment, whatever the treatment may be for the individual.

Using this forum as ones personal platform is not wise.  The consequences may harm another who does not have the ability/rational state to make a wise informed decision.  K I S S is often the best route to take.  

The members of this forum take from their personal experiences. Many have the capacity to consider the weights and measures, many are in the medical field and have the resources to look at all avenues.  They continue with CPAP as their treatment.

I for one, am not interested in having an abundance of information thrown down my throat that has not been fully researched for use in Sleep Apnea.  To me, the air pressure being forced there is what is working.  Again, CPAP is my one way ticket to a longer life with less complications.  Nature makes air, not pills.

My bottom line, if you want to use a medically proven treatment for apnea, my arms are open.  I will even finally register on this forum to do so.

Anonymous wrote:

guest vintage67,

IMO, "apnea support" means providing info to people regarding treatments that have been shown to be effective. If there is little or no research showing a treatment to be effective, then why would it be considered "all things apnea". As pointed out, there are thousands of studies of CPAP, and a consensus among researchers, universities, and professional medical organizations, regarding its position is the leading recommended treatment. The advantages have been shown to outweigh the disadvantages. That is the reason its use is strongly encouraged.

There is research being conducted into other possible treatments (such as the didgeridoo), none of which have been proven to be effective (according to the researchers themselves), and the status of the research is posted in various places on the site. Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to see one research study showing that the suggested alternative, 5-HTP, significantly improves the sleep apnea condition (lowers AHI) in humans.

Good luck to you.

Forgot to mention the other categories of approved treatments are surgical and dental appliances.

thewriteone wrote:

Apnea treatment lowers cardiovascular risk but CPAP treatment results in increased apnea-hypopnea index vs. untreated patients.  In other words, you use it, you apnea gets worse while your symptoms get better.  CPAP is a one way ticket.

That is not what the results said.  It said that there was a trend for AHI to increase with CPAP-treated patients versus those who couldn't tolerate the CPAP.  It could be due to other factors related to the intolerant group.  It might even be one of the factors that makes them intolerant to CPAP.

I also noticed that when you said, "Apnea treatment lowers cardiovascular risk", you included all apnea treatments, rather than just CPAP (which was the subject of the study).


_________________
John
CPAP'd on 18 Sep 2007
ResMed Elite S8 w/ heated humidifier
Swift II + chin strap
Pressure 8 w/ EPR

I have been following the topic of this thread and the associated threads with great interest.  Because of my profession I was very concerned with the content and its way of broadcast.  At his point I am now jumping in with feedback.

Are you aware of the online laws and liability behind them.  The inadvertent or unintentional failure to exercise care which a reasonable. prudent and careful person would exercise? or The grounds for recovery in a tort action if it is the proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff?  Are you aware of the definition per law of a reasonable person.  Could you live with knowing your actions caused a person harm?

The intention may have been sincere.  The consequences as mentioned above may be severe.

Dear Guest,

I was never ever fighting to stop anyone from using CPAP.  All I ever wanted was to discuss alternative treatments and have my choices respected and share information I had gathered.  No.  Wait.  Actually that's not completely true, I was doing the research for quite awhile, mentioned something a few times, and was requested to post my research for other people to benefit.  That seemed reasonable since not many people read fast enough to weed through the references searching for relevant results and lookup definitions and throw it all together.  I was lucky enough to be born with a high IQ and excellent memory as well as the ability to speed read.  Being stuck home unable to venture out due to illness gives me plenty of time but its hard not being able to do anything productive.  

As I go through life I'm always slightly amazed that people not only expect everything to be done for them but assume that everything that is possible has been done and all they need to do is sit and follow instructions.  How on earth is progress to be made if people not only don't bother to take initiative but want to block anyone else from doing so?  Sometimes in life you have to think for yourself.

jabberwock wrote:

thewriteone wrote:

Apnea treatment lowers cardiovascular risk but CPAP treatment results in increased apnea-hypopnea index vs. untreated patients.  In other words, you use it, you apnea gets worse while your symptoms get better.  CPAP is a one way ticket.

That is not what the results said.  It said that there was a trend for AHI to increase with CPAP-treated patients versus those who couldn't tolerate the CPAP.  It could be due to other factors related to the intolerant group.  It might even be one of the factors that makes them intolerant to CPAP.

I also noticed that when you said, "Apnea treatment lowers cardiovascular risk", you included all apnea treatments, rather than just CPAP (which was the subject of the study).

The linguistic correction you are right about but it doesn't alter the facts.  While your explanation is possible, possible does not mean true.  My conclusion is equally possible.

Anonymous wrote:

I have been following the topic of this thread and the associated threads with great interest.  Because of my profession I was very concerned with the content and its way of broadcast.  At his point I am now jumping in with feedback.

Are you aware of the online laws and liability behind them.  The inadvertent or unintentional failure to exercise care which a reasonable. prudent and careful person would exercise? or The grounds for recovery in a tort action if it is the proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff?  Are you aware of the definition per law of a reasonable person.  Could you live with knowing your actions caused a person harm?

The intention may have been sincere.  The consequences as mentioned above may be severe.

I am aware of both.  Are you?  Are you offering yourself as liable should someone die of untreated apnea who could not tolerate CPAP or for whom it was contraindicated if later evidence proves my theories to be correct?  

Your ominous comments are not legally valid, as I am neither a practicing physician nor claiming to be one.  There is no law which prevents the discussion or even wild support of a possible treatment unless there is solid proof it is wrong and I know it and deny knowledge of it or attempt to sell something on such basis.  I'm not selling anything but it sounds like you are so please identify yourself.  

I can absolutely live with everything I've posted as I have taken care to clearly identify my qualifications, the sources cited, etc..  I've gone above and beyond any legal requirements and in fact I've gone beyond what most websites offer.  

Am I willing to live with the risk of someone dying because I didn't post the information that might have saved them?  NOT REALLY.

I find it interesting that you would make such threatening and blatantly false suggestions.  Let me guess, you learned all this in your pro se lawsuit against the penile enlargement spam companies?  [Who incidentally it would apply to as they are required to adhere to laws regarding false advertising, product liability, fraud (because they are selling something), and liable under FDA regulations.]  Research and discussion is exempt under freedom of speech (among other things).  So long as I'm not committing fraud, practicing medicine without a license, falsifying credentials (that seems to be your issue), etc., I'm free to support any treatment I want let alone research and discuss it.  Look it up.  
 
I can't believe my research was censored and your post is tolerated.

Anonymous wrote:

I have been following the topic of this thread and the associated threads with great interest.  Because of my profession I was very concerned with the content and its way of broadcast.  At his point I am now jumping in with feedback.

Are you aware of the online laws and liability behind them.  The inadvertent or unintentional failure to exercise care which a reasonable. prudent and careful person would exercise? or The grounds for recovery in a tort action if it is the proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff?  Are you aware of the definition per law of a reasonable person.  Could you live with knowing your actions caused a person harm?

The intention may have been sincere.  The consequences as mentioned above may be severe.

Incidentally, even supplement companies who are regulated by laws regarding honesty in commerce are allowed to state on labels and in advertising and use to sell their products any claim they do not know to be false as long as they specify that it has not been evaluated by the FDA for that purpose.  So if I wanted to I could publish my findings and/or manufacture and sell the product including the research and claims I have made.  In fact I have made no claims except to draw conclusions based on research appearing in such publications as PDR, Chest, New England Journal of Medicine, etc., so don't shoot the messenger here.  My work is far more reliable than most of the stuff on the shelves at the drugstore and I firmly and honestly believe much safer than most of the drugs behind the counter.  If not you'd need a prescription and the stuff wouldn't be included in baby formula.