CPAPtalk.com

Um, I just cannot get past who "discovered" this gem . . .

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑

Wed May 30, 2018 8:16 pm

Um, I just cannot get past who "discovered" this gem . . .

Looks like it's Jerrold Kram, M.D., who is introducing this new technology from Sommetrics.

Lucyhere wrote: ↑

Wed May 30, 2018 10:01 pm

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑

Wed May 30, 2018 8:16 pm

Um, I just cannot get past who "discovered" this gem . . .

Looks like it's Jerrold Kram, M.D., who is introducing this new technology from Sommetrics.

I went to their website and checked out who is on their advisory board. Surprised to see a familiar name, Prof. Colin Sullivan. https://sommetrics.com/advisors/

Like others here I must admit to being skeptical. Also, a bit puzzled how this has been approved by Health Canada for treatment of OSA based on what seems to be a single study done in Toronto, apart from the very small industry financed studies already mentioned. Very unclear.

If my doctor were on board with this, I would get very nervous . . .

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑

Thu May 31, 2018 9:15 am

If my doctor were on board with this, I would get very nervous . . .

There are not too many doctors out there who would recommend this unless CPAP is contraindicated or has not worked. At least not now.

If most of us saw a description of CPAP when it first came out, I think we'd have a similar reaction.

One possible upside, it might prevent some cpap haters from DEMANDING the trache.
My cpap works fine--WITHOUT giving me a hickey.

Arlene1963 wrote: ↑

Thu May 31, 2018 8:32 am

Lucyhere wrote: ↑

Wed May 30, 2018 10:01 pm

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑

Wed May 30, 2018 8:16 pm

Um, I just cannot get past who "discovered" this gem . . .

Looks like it's Jerrold Kram, M.D., who is introducing this new technology from Sommetrics.

I went to their website and checked out who is on their advisory board. Surprised to see a familiar name, Prof. Colin Sullivan. https://sommetrics.com/advisors/

Like others here I must admit to being skeptical. Also, a bit puzzled how this has been approved by Health Canada for treatment of OSA based on what seems to be a single study done in Toronto, apart from the very small industry financed studies already mentioned. Very unclear.

With national healthcare, if it will save them money and it can be vaguely justified, they will approve it.

I applaud all innovators and researchers committed to exploring possible ways of helping people who cannot or will not use PAP. The more "alternatives" out there, the better--even the "alternatives" that only help a tiny minority of the population by reducing their sleep-breathing issues a few tiny percentage points.

However, I boo and hiss and publicly condemn any who hold up any one of the "alternatives" to PAP as being more effective than it is or as being helpful to a larger segment of the population than it is.

My primary gripe is that it is completely unnecessary to attack the gold-standard treatment for a life-threatening condition when attempting to establish that your product may be helpful to some people unable to take advantage of that gold standard treatment and who must settle for silver, bronze, and otherwise.

It may be interesting for off grid camping. I would like to see lab results. That reminds me of being as disruptive as camping...

I wish they'd put more resources into getting CPAP compliance batter than it is. I would say (from what I'm able to see) that it's 50% at best. It's at least that bad when you count those who tried years ago and put the machine is storage (or returned it). Imagine how good it would be if we could get up to 75%. If some of those who had since passed away had been compliant, they might be alive today and counted among the compliant!

That being said, CPAP is not for everybody, and there need to be alternatives.

Money vs lives, and quality of life.
Small wonder why more effort is NOT made towards universal compliance.
We are but ciphers.--and one meaning of "cipher" is a zero. (Get it?)

It's actually in use and approved by the U.S. FDA for use in certain well-defined circumstances:

FDA cleared for airway management in adults undergoing medical procedures of less than 2 hours in duration, where the patient is intended to receive mild to moderate sedation with non-propofol containing medications.

See - https://m.smiths-medical.com/~/media/M/ ... 017_LR.pdf

Cpapian wrote: ↑

Wed May 30, 2018 12:06 pm

You're not far off, some of the 15 participants had skin issues from the ONE night study!

... 'cause no one ever had skin issues the first night they used a CPAP mask.

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑

Thu May 31, 2018 3:00 pm

Small wonder why more effort is NOT made towards universal compliance.

How about effort towards universal gun control, and allowing people with sleep apnea to decide for themselves whether they wish to be compliant. I choose to use my machine. That's my choice... but I wouldn't want anyone forcing me to do something I choose not to do.

Lucy, nothing I have said indicates FORCED anything!
Public perception of cpap is ridiculous--patient assistance is practically non existent--even in the clinic.
Negative opinions are promoted--and never officially contradicted--commercial buy-offs?
Much cpap refusal results from misinformation and inaccessibility of assistance.
If we address that, then the truly UNABLE will be free to do whatever works--or not.
And those who could--(if only)-- have a better chance.