findmyKOL
Clinical trialNCT04688125CompletedObservational

Evaluation of An Optical Measurement Algorithm Combined With Patient and Provider Input to Reduce Mask Exchanges During Initial Positive Airway Pressure Therapy

SponsorMayo ClinicEnrollment67Obesity Hypoventilation Syndrome (OHS)Sleep Apnea SyndromesSleep Apnea, Obstructive
View the registry record on ClinicalTrials.gov

Summary

The lay summary the sponsor registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Continuous positive airway pressure and non-invasive ventilation are common treatment modalities for obstructive sleep apnea, central sleep apnea, and chronic alveolar hypoventilation from a variety of causes. Use of positive airway pressure (PAP) requires use of an interface, commonly referred to as a "mask." There are a range of mask options available, differing in configuration and sizing, including masks that fit into the nostrils (nasal pillows, NP), cover the nose (nasal masks, NM), cover both the nose and the mouth (oronasal masks, ONM), and rarely those that fit into the mouth (oral masks, OM) or over the entire face. The variety of masks, sizes, and materials result from the wide variety of facial configurations and patient preferences along with requirements to provide a good seal for varying pressure requirements. Failure to find a good match for a given patient may result in significant side effects, such as eye irritation owing to leak into the eyes, skin pressure sores, noise generation, and inadequate therapy when air leaks are extreme. Pressure sores, mask dislodgement, claustrophobic complaints, air leaks, and sore eyes occur in 20-50% of patients with OSA receiving PAP, and these effects negatively correlate with PAP compliance. Furthermore, several trials point to differences in compliance related to which types of masks are utilized. In a randomized cross-over trial, compliance was 1 hour more per night in patients using NM compared to those using ONM.1 In another, NPs were associated with fewer adverse effects and better subjective sleep quality than NMs.2 Therefore, failure to find an acceptable mask results in lower or non-compliance, and therefore treatment failure. Currently, finding a right mask is performed either using crude templates, or via an iterative process, variably guided by experts in mask fitting. There are no standard certifications or algorithms to guide mask fitting. Given the above, it would be very desirable to find a reliable method to reduce the errors in mask fitting so that the costs, inconvenience, and suffering are all reduced.

Investigators

The overall officials registered on this study. Names that resolve to a findmyKOL profile link to it; the rest are shown as registered.

A profile link is shown only when the registered name resolves to a person record with a confident, namesake-checked match; ambiguous names stay unlinked.

Sites

1 registered facility, with the per-site recruitment status where the registry publishes one. ClinicalTrials.gov does not publish per-site enrollment counts.

United States
  • Mayo Clinic in Rochester

    Rochester, Minnesota, United States

Site investigator names are published by ClinicalTrials.gov only while a study recruits, so completed studies list sites without them.

Drugs studied

No drug or biological interventions are in our data for this study. It may test a procedure, device or behavioral intervention, or the intervention list isn't in our current snapshot. See the registry record ↗. Why? →

Registration & key dates

Registry attributes as recorded on the ClinicalTrials.gov study record.

Start
17 Jun 2021
Primary completion
31 Dec 2024
Completion
31 Dec 2024
Last update posted
28 Feb 2025
Registered enrollment
67
Registry id
NCT04688125

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, via the CTTI AACT database, data as of 24 Aug 2026. Registry facts are shown as registered by the study sponsor; findmyKOL does not interpret them.