Association of Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation With Improvements in Long-term, Patient-Reported Outcomes and Comparison With Positive Airway Pressure for Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Abstract

Importance: Hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HNS) and positive airway pressure (PAP) have been shown to improve patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). However, to our knowledge, there are no data that compare change in PROs between HNS and PAP or that indicate whether HNS improves comorbid insomnia or depression in the long term.

Objectives: To determine whether HNS is associated with improvements in patient-reported sleepiness, insomnia, and depression in the long term and to compare the respective associations of HNS and PAP with improved PROs.

Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from patients treated at the Cleveland Clinic for OSA. Participants received either HNS (referred sample) from November 1, 2015, to September 31, 2018, or PAP (previous cohort) from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014, for OSA. Patients were matched 3:1 for PAP:HNS based on age, body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), sex, and apnea hypopnea index (AHI). Data were collected at baseline and at prespecified follow-up points. Data were analyzed from March 26, 2020, to September 9, 2021.

Exposures: Treatment with HNS vs PAP.

Main outcomes and measures: Data collected included AHI and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; depression) scores.

Results: Among 85 patients receiving HNS (mean [SD] age, 62.8 [9.5] years; 59 men [69.4%]; 77 White patients [90.6%]; mean [SD] BMI, 28.8 [3.1]), compared with 217 matched patients receiving PAP (mean [SD] age, 62.1 [9.9] years; 157 men [72.4%]; 173 White patients [81.2%]; mean [SD] BMI, 29.5 [3.1]) included in the analysis, significant improvements were seen in PHQ-9 scores for HNS vs PAP (least square means, -4.06 [95% CI, -5.34 to -2.79] vs -2.58 [95% CI, -3.35 to -1.82]; mean difference, -1.48 [95% CI, -2.78 to -0.19]) with comparable improvements in ESS, FOSQ, and ISI scores. Clinically meaningful differences were observed in 42 of 65 HNS group patients (64.6%) vs 118 PAP group patients (54.5%) for ESS scores, 29 of 49 HNS group patients (59.2%) vs 67 of 217 PAP group patients (30.9%) for FOSQ scores, 14 of 48 HNS group patients (29.2%) vs 53 of 217 PAP group patients (24.4%) for PHQ-9 scores, and 23 of 49 HNS group patients (46.9%) vs 79 of 217 PAP group patients (36.4%) for ISI scores. At the 1-year post-HNS assessment, meaningful improvements were seen in 17 of 28 patients (60.7%) for ESS scores, 11 of 20 patients (55.0%) for FOSQ scores, 7 of 23 patients (30.4%) for PHQ-9 scores, and 11 of 25 patients (44.0%) for ISI scores.

Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study of patients with OSA, sustained improvements in PROs were observed 1 year after HNS and were comparable to those for PAP at 3 months. These findings suggest that HNS is a viable treatment for improving insomnia and depression in patients with OSA.

Figure 1.. Changes in Patient-Related Outcomes From Baseline to 3-Month Follow-up in Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation (HNS) and Positive Airway Pressure (PAP) Groups

Adherent weekly use is defined as at least 28 hours of HNS use in HNS group and at least 4 hours of PAP use on at least 70% of nights in PAP group. Data for all patients are shown in Table 2; for treatment-adherent patients, eTable 1 in the Supplement. LSM indicates least square means.

Figure 2.. Longitudinal Changes in Patient-Related Outcomes (PROs) With Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation Use

Horizontal bars indicate median; boxes, IQR; and error bars, upper quartile +1.5 × IQR and lower quartile −1.5 × IQR.