0593 INSPIRE Device Therapy: A Treatment Option for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Post Orthotopic Heart Transplant

Parag Kale,Eneida Harrison,Athica Vatanapradith,Naren Venkatesan,Sandra Carey,Amarinder Bindra
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsae067.0593
IF: 6.313
2024-04-20
SLEEP
Abstract:Abstract Introduction Continuous Positive Airway pressure (CPAP) therapy is currently the standard of care for patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Commonly seen in patients with heart failure, this condition can persist post Orthotopic Heart Transplant (OHT). PAP therapy is frequently not tolerated, yet untreated OSA can potentiate graft failure. The FDA approved INSPIRE device provides hypoglossal nerve stimulation as optional therapy for OSA. However, there is a paucity of data for its utility and efficacy in the post cardiac transplant patients. The heart transplant graft is denervated and it is thus uncertain if treatment would be similarly effective as in patients without OHT. We therefore report our experience in the use of the INSPIRE device following OHT. Methods Chart review was performed for this case report using Epic electronic health record Results TB is a 72 yr old man status post OHT in 2015. He has known OSA since 2016 for which he was placed on CPAP. He was intolerant to CPAP after OHT. He was therefore referred to ENT for consideration of Inspire device. He underwent uneventful surgical implantation of device in December 2022. He was subsequently followed in the sleep clinic and INSPIRE device settings optimized. He reported improved sleep quality, increased daytime energy and is clinically doing well 10 months after implant. The central apnea index was zero and there were no Cheyne stoke respirations pre and post-implant. Conclusion The INSPIRE device is effective and safe following Orthotopic Heart Transplant (OHT). The benefit is seen early and appears to be well tolerated following implant with low procedural complication. Support (if any)
neurosciences,clinical neurology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is to evaluate whether an externally - worn accelerometer control system can be comparable in performance to the pressure - sensor control system in the implanted HNS system. Specifically, the study aims to compare the stimulation timing determination and inspiratory phase onset fraction (IPOF) identification accuracy of the two systems to verify whether the accelerometer can be an alternative to provide at least the same level of stimulation delivery effect. ### Research Background - **HNS System**: The HNS (Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation) system is a device used to treat obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) by stimulating the hypoglossal nerve to prevent airway collapse. - **Pressure - Sensor Control**: The current HNS system uses an implanted pressure sensor to detect the respiratory cycle, thereby determining the stimulation timing. - **Accelerometer Control**: The study proposes a method using an external accelerometer to determine the respiratory cycle by monitoring thoracic movement and then decide the stimulation timing. ### Research Methods - **Subjects**: 56 patients with an implanted HNS system (8 using Inspire II and 48 using Inspire IV). - **Data Collection**: - Patients wore two accelerometers (located approximately 5 centimeters below the left and right clavicles) while undergoing polysomnography (PSG). - The stimulation time of the commercial system was exported and aligned with the PSG waveform, and the IPOF of the commercial system was calculated. - The accelerometer waveform was exported and aligned with the PSG respiratory sensor, and a perception algorithm was applied to determine the stimulation timing and calculate the IPOF of the accelerometer system. - **Data Analysis**: - Calculate the mean, standard deviation, and 95% confidence interval of IPOF. - Divide the entire cohort into an optimization group and a validation group for algorithm optimization and validation respectively. ### Research Results - **Commercial System**: IPOF was 78% ± 7%, 95%CI [76% - 79%] (n = 56, 298 hours of sleep). - **Accelerometer System**: - Optimization Group: IPOF was 86% ± 6%, 95%CI [84% - 88%] (n = 26, 133 hours of sleep). - Validation Group: IPOF was 83% ± 8%, 95%CI [80% - 85%] (n = 30, 165 hours of sleep). ### Conclusion - The research results show that the externally - worn accelerometer control system is comparable to the implanted pressure - sensor control system in terms of inspiratory phase onset fraction identification accuracy. This indicates that the accelerometer control system can be embedded in the generator of the HNS system to replace the implanted pressure sensor and provide at least the same level of stimulation delivery effect. ### Support - This study was funded by Inspire Medical Systems, and Inspire employees participated in the study implementation and data analysis. ### Formula - Mean ± Standard Deviation [95% Confidence Interval] - Commercial System: 78% ± 7% [76% - 79%] - Accelerometer System (Optimization Group): 86% ± 6% [84% - 88%] - Accelerometer System (Validation Group): 83% ± 8% [80% - 85%] Through these results, the research team demonstrated the feasibility and effectiveness of the accelerometer as a potential alternative in the HNS system.