Introduction: We performed a meta-analysis on whether heated humidification during positive airway pressure (PAP) could improve compliance and subjective daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) patients.
Materials and methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials, Web of Science and Scopus from inception to Oct 29, 2017. We made meta-analysis on the all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which assessed effects of heated humidification intervention on PAP compliance and subjective daytime sleepiness, by subgroups of automatic adjusting positive airway pressure/ continuous positive airway pressure (APAP/CPAP) usage and patients with/without upper airway symptoms prior to PAP therapy.
Results: A total of nine RCTs were evaluated finally in this meta-analysis. When all the studies were pooled, heated humidification did not improve PAP usage time [weighted mean difference(WMD) = 13.28, 95% confidence interval(CI): -5.85 to 32.41, P = 0.17] or Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) score (WMD = -0.63, 95% CI: -1.32 to 0.07, P = 0.08). In terms of PAP usage time, heated humidification failed to enhance compliance in both APAP (WMD = 22.34, 95%CI: -21.08 to 65.77, P = 0.31) or CPAP subgroup (WMD = 11.09, 95%CI: -10.21 to 32.40, P = 0.31) and it was also ineffective among patients with upper airway symptoms prior to PAP therapy (WMD = 22.74, 95% CI: -7.77 to 53.24, P = 0.14) or without (WMD = 13.22, 95%CI: -35.84 to 62.29, P = 0.60). In terms of ESS score, heated humidification did not reduce ESS scores in both APAP (WMD = -1.59, 95% CI: -3.81 to 0.64, P = 0.16) or CPAP subgroup (WMD = -0.39, 95% CI: -1.16 to 0.37, P = 0.32) and it was also helpless among patients with upper airway symptoms prior to PAP therapy (WMD = -1.17, 95% CI: -3.10 to 0.75, P = 0.23) or without (WMD = -0.30, 95%CI: -2.25 to 1.66, P = 0.76).
Conclusion: Heated humidification during PAP therapy improves neither the compliance nor ESS scores in OSAS patients, no matter what types of PAP or whether the patients had upper airway symptoms prior to PAP therapy. But to the population with upper airway symptoms and the APAP users, the conclusions were limited because of small sample size and possible selection bias. More attentions should be paid to these potentially possible benefited subgroups.