↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Mask humidity during CPAP: influence of ambient temperature, heated humidification and heated tubing

Overview of attention for article published in Nature and science of sleep, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Mask humidity during CPAP: influence of ambient temperature, heated humidification and heated tubing
Published in
Nature and science of sleep, May 2018
DOI 10.2147/nss.s158856
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georg Nilius, Ulrike Domanski, Maik Schroeder, Holger Woehrle, Andrea Graml, Karl-Josef Franke

Abstract

Mucosal drying during continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy is problematic for many patients. This study assessed the influence of ambient relative humidity (rH) and air temperature (T) in winter and summer on mask humidity during CPAP, with and without mask leak, and with or without heated humidification ± heated tubing. CPAP (8 and 12 cmH2O) without humidification (no humidity [nH]), with heated humidification controlled by ambient temperature and humidity (heated humidity [HH]) and HH plus heated tubing climate line (CL), with and without leakage, were compared in 18 subjects with OSA during summer and winter. The absolute humidity (aH) and the T inside the mask during CPAP were significantly lower in winter versus summer under all applied conditions. Overall, absolute humidity differences between summer and winter were statistically significant in both HH and CL vs. nH (p < 0.05) in the presence and absence of mouth leak. There were no significant differences in aH between HH and CL. However, in-mask temperature during CL was higher (p < 0.05) and rH lower than during HH. In winter, CPAP with CL was more likely to keep rH constant at 80% than CPAP without humidification or with standard HH. Clinically-relevant reductions in aH were documented during CPAP given under winter conditions. The addition of heated humidification, using a heated tube to avoid condensation is recommended to increase aH, which could be useful in CPAP users complaining of nose and throat symptoms.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 25%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 32%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 May 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Nature and science of sleep
#560
of 629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#298,886
of 339,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature and science of sleep
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.