Is my flowrate fine or am I having a problem?

I am still quite new to CPAP. I use a constant pressure of 9. Let's just say that my doctor is not really helpful and just does "the standard".
My AHIs came down a lot. O2 became much better (using a wellue ring to messure it). I am actually not feeling bad - using it for 9 nights now. Still feeling tired and the sleep is not "as usual" but I think that is normal for this stage.

So I was looking at my OSCAR data and the wiki and found something I wanted other opinions on. Here my general data:

https://imgur.com/a/JhG3IhC

Here is what I saw:

The flow rate seems unusual low and shallow? It looks a bt like "inspirationary flow limitation" from the wiki? Is this a problem?

https://imgur.com/a/sgzOeEN


Also just realised: You can have a look here over sleep HQ:
https://sleephq.com/public/9a26f5a3-1fb ... 8d5fb39dae

It would help to know what machine you are using. Is there a reason the doctor prescribed CPAP rather than Auto CPAP? Your AHI is quite low, excellent in fact. But the events you do have are nearly all central or hypopnea, and there are examples of obstructive evets followed immediately by central events. An auto CPAP would probably be able to run at lower average pressure which might reduce the number of centrals and hypopneas.

The waveforms in the Oscar screenshot are "low and shallow" because the scale is too low.

You've got a lot FL that would be attacked by an Auto. Too bad you ain't got one.

That said, you sleep through a lot of it (and a FL w/o an arousal is "nothing").

That said2, here's some FL that is terminated by an arousal-- and that compromises sleep continuity:

Nocibur wrote: ↑

Fri May 02, 2025 1:13 pm

The waveforms in the Oscar screenshot are "low and shallow" because the scale is too low.

On OSCAR (I don't know about sleep HQ) you can change the scale, overriding the default.

You've got a lot FL that would be attacked by an Auto. Too bad you ain't got one.

Also snores just before the biggest bouts of FL
[/quote]

ozij wrote: ↑

Fri May 02, 2025 9:49 pm

On OSCAR (I don't know about sleep HQ) you can change the scale, overriding the default.

Or go to Auto-Fit. That should have been the default.

Can't change scale on SleepHQ. IMO can be a drawback.

Also they chose to exclude Mask Pressure. Occasionally can be very helpful.

What do you think about these "One And Done" (or in this case, "Two And Done") posters?

I mean, is it too much to ask that they come back with a "Thank You", or at least "I saw your reply, now FO"?

Nocibur wrote: ↑

Mon May 05, 2025 4:19 am

What do you think about these "One And Done" (or in this case, "Two And Done") posters?

I try not to think of them at all...

Can you give me a short explanation of what we can learn from the mask pressure graph / when?

ozij wrote: ↑

Tue May 06, 2025 7:27 am

Can you give me a short explanation of what we can learn from the mask pressure graph / when?

The most notable example was the exposé revealing that EPR wasn't a comfort measure, but rather since inspiration occurred at a pressure less than what was set/ordered was actually unauthorized bilevel:

Why Respironics didn't sue to have FDA shut them down is beyond me.

Another use would be analyzing waveforms from "legal" bilevels to show that what would seem to be FL in the Flow Rate waveform is simply engineering the breath by IPAP.

Also played around with a case of PP in Tyler2 to see if a critical pressure could be determined:

Nocibur wrote: ↑

Wed May 07, 2025 3:43 am

Also played around with a case of PP in Tyler2 to see if a critical pressure could be determined:

Could it be determined? By "critical" do you mean pressure at which the prolapse occuurs?

ozij wrote: ↑

Wed May 07, 2025 11:08 am

Could it be determined? By "critical" do you mean pressure at which the prolapse occuurs?

Right. It seems like closure is at ~7.0 cmH2O, so why not try EPAP 7.0?

I mean, what does EPAP 4.2 cmhH2O really do anyway?

Nocibur wrote: ↑

Wed May 07, 2025 3:43 am

Another use would be analyzing waveforms from "legal" bilevels to show that what would seem to be FL in the Flow Rate waveform is simply engineering the breath by IPAP.

Could you give an image of what you mean by this?

robysue1 wrote: ↑

Wed May 07, 2025 2:34 pm

Could you give an image of what you mean by this?

Sure.