Clear Airway Apnea = Central Apnea?

-SWS wrote:Well, that was very kind of you to recognize our behavior as "simply crazy", "bizarre", and "a possible prelude to an emotional meltdown". And it was even kinder of you to so warmly warn the public.

Silly thing is, with my formal training in deviant social behavior I didn't even manage to spot all that. Here, let me give you some warm smileys for recognizing all that, and then performing that kind public service announcement:


All better! Thank you!

Yes it is time to move on isn't it

DSM

-SWS wrote:Silly thing is, with my formal training in deviant social behavior

OK, I have to ask... What is your training in deviant social behavior??

SleepingUgly wrote: OK, I have to ask... What is your training in deviant social behavior??

Only behavioral-science undergraduate study paired with an ever-so-battered issue of Psychology Today. So please freely dismiss that. The far more relevant question is what are the credentials of anyone who comes here to publicly paint the humorous antics of others as mentally infirm?

That kind of incorrect public painting is reminiscent of THIS thread where I was recently publicly painted as having "dissed" Dr. Krakow with a "blowtorch". Only three posts after that tarnishing public-service announcement of dsm's I listed all of my Dr. Krakow comments for everyone to see. You'll note there is absolutely no dissing, blowtorching, or disrespect anywhere in those polite posts of mine either to or about Dr. Krakow.

Bear in mind the above castigation for my having very politely questioned only a couple of Dr. Krakow's points came from the very same person who took credit for this desirable personality trait on the eighth page of our current thread:

dsm wrote:I am a questioner & am not afraid to poke & probe & challenge I will guarantee that many people have benefited from me doing so. We
do not need sacred cows here.

Again, when anyone comes here announcing the humorous antics of others as mentally infirm, I want to see or hear that person's credentials. Now it's time to politely move on with those famous benevolent smileys.

-SWS,

Hope you don't mind my jumping in here.

I think in both instances you mention, DSM may have been trying to provoke Muffy/SAG moreso than you. (That's what I assumed, anyway. I could be wrong.) SAG's words to Krakow on a technical matter may have been direct in harmony with the long-held tradition of forum discussions, but I believe they were helpful, and I assume Krakow took them in the spirit intended. Also Muffy's multipersonality antics are obviously all in fun, but DSM may be trying to play along in hopes of getting in good graces there. I do not know the scientific term for that kind of statistical improbability, though.

My question for you is: Are there any undergraduates who don't get some training in deviant social behavior?

jeff

jnk wrote:My question for you is: Are there any undergraduates who don't get some training in deviant social behavior? Good one, Jeff!

jeff

Regarding this:

jnk wrote:I think in both instances you [-SWS] mention, DSM may have been trying to provoke Muffy/SAG moreso than you.

Looks pretty obvious to me who dsm was referring to in this topic:

viewtopic.php?p=426874#p426874

dsm wrote:#2 Now I know how Dr Barry Krakow felt when RG & SWS put the blowtorch on him re his comments on
'big gap' ipap/epap & dealing with UARS. It was really something to see a renowned Dr who runs a sleep clinic
dissed to the extent he was over his comments. Maybe he will come back one day.

jnk wrote:
<snip>
I do not know the scientific term for that kind of statistical improbability, though.

<snip>

jeff

Jeff,

You are one cool dude & re the quoted line, we call that "a snowballs chance in hell" - and that to me is a pity.

Thanks

DSM

Jnk, you're jumping in as I'm trying to jump out...?

jnk wrote:My question for you is: Are there any undergraduates who don't get some training in deviant social behavior?

Valid point: people that age seem to learn that kind of thing first-hand, regardless of line of study. Mine was an experimental curriculum back in the seventies that was essentially sociology with a criminal behavior focus. However, that curriculum did not contain the police-work type offerings (non-behavioral) common to so many law enforcement and criminology curricula.

Regarding who the comments were aimed at. I'll accept your theory of broad or collateral damage versus direct.

I am starting to think that the puffs of air sensation that I had with the Oracle may have been this airway test. Whatever it was, it was far less tolerable occurring IN my mouth than in my face, and that's why I couldn't fall asleep with the Oracle. I wish there was a way to shut off that feature. My nose bridge could use a night off, and maybe, just maybe, I could fall asleep with the Oracle if the machine weren't trying to detect central apneas on me while I'm awake. Ah well.

-SWS wrote:

SleepingUgly wrote:On the PR System One, do the clear airway tests (puffs of air) occur in CPAP mode or only Auto-Pap?

Well, according to this Respironics capability chart, that same clear-airway apnea event detection also occurs in the PR System One fixed pressure model (the RemStar Pro): http://advancedeventdetection.respironi ... ities.aspx

So if Respironics detects a clear airway in the CPAP-only version of the PR System One product line, you can safely bet they'll do the same on their APAP model running at fixed pressure. Respironics markets that advanced event detection with this important objective:

...the real advancement is its ability to point out when the patient is experiencing symptoms beyond classic OSA.

http://advancedeventdetection.respironics.com/ (and toward that objective you don't need a high sensitivity score to reveal useful albeit basic trends)

So the above event detection is not purely for the sake of running the APAP algorithm. A primary purpose is to notify the person reading that data if there are problems besides ordinary OSA. Case-in-point: the algorithm will do absolutely nothing in response to detected periodic breathing (PB). PR System One's PB event detection is purely for informational purposes---even on the APAP model.

So I presume the answer is yes, the airway puffs occur in CPAP mode as well---since Respironics does not relinquish that same capability on the CPAP-only model.

SleepingUgly wrote:I am starting to think that the puffs of air sensation that I had with the Oracle may have been this airway test. Whatever it was, it was far less tolerable occurring IN my mouth than in my face, and that's why I couldn't fall asleep with the Oracle. I wish there was a way to shut off that feature. My nose bridge could use a night off, and maybe, just maybe, I could fall asleep with the Oracle if the machine weren't trying to detect central apneas on me while I'm awake. Ah well.

-SWS wrote:

SleepingUgly wrote:On the PR System One, do the clear airway tests (puffs of air) occur in CPAP mode or only Auto-Pap?

Well, according to this Respironics capability chart, that same clear-airway apnea event detection also occurs in the PR System One fixed pressure model (the RemStar Pro): http://advancedeventdetection.respironi ... ities.aspx

So if Respironics detects a clear airway in the CPAP-only version of the PR System One product line, you can safely bet they'll do the same on their APAP model running at fixed pressure. Respironics markets that advanced event detection with this important objective:

...the real advancement is its ability to point out when the patient is experiencing symptoms beyond classic OSA.

http://advancedeventdetection.respironics.com/ (and toward that objective you don't need a high sensitivity score to reveal useful albeit basic trends)

So the above event detection is not purely for the sake of running the APAP algorithm. A primary purpose is to notify the person reading that data if there are problems besides ordinary OSA. Case-in-point: the algorithm will do absolutely nothing in response to detected periodic breathing (PB). PR System One's PB event detection is purely for informational purposes---even on the APAP model.

So I presume the answer is yes, the airway puffs occur in CPAP mode as well---since Respironics does not relinquish that same capability on the CPAP-only model.

In support of what you are observing - the CA vs OSA detection mechanism in the Respironics, is, from what I think have learned here, a very low frequency probe (compared to typical FOT burst probes). By this I am leading to the point that FOT is of a pulse frequency that most people would not be aware of. The Respironics probing being of a very low frequency (I gather it is only a bit faster than normal breathing rate ), could appear as 'puffs' or 'pulses' in some types of masks.

DSM (hoping I got this right)

@-SWS,

I agree with the posters who have already expressed appreciation for your presence in the thread. Your presence is appreciated in all threads, but this kind of thread on this board seems particularly to flounder without your presence, in my experience. If putting a person or two on your foes list would allow you to stay in the thread . . .

@DSM,

I have always admired your enthusiasm for all things PAP related, but it worries me when you play fast and loose with the facts at times--about the machines and about people too. And although I know you feel picked on, it may be useful information to you to know that, from where I sit, it often looks to me more like you are, whether in a calculated way or inadvertantly, picking on Muffy, -SWS, and RG. I have no idea of the history, and don't need to know. But for the sake of the board, you may want to think about being more careful about what you say about PAP and about others as you contiune to share your fascinations as a PAP enthusiast, which are of real value to me and I'm sure to others.

jeff

ps-The very idea that -SWS or Rested Gal would ever disrespect anyone or put anyone to the fire with a blowtorch is a step beyond ludicrous to me. That's not who either of them are, which is obvious to anyone who has read their posts.

Jeff

I thought 2010 started off very well & with lots of politeness & respect and the very strong intent that it flow that way. There have been past run-ins.

Then we had RG's post directed at me early in this thread & yes I agree, things seemed to have spiraled a bit askew despite what I thought was my attempt to defend myself & try to stay on topic. So while I understand your point, do you have a word for RG in regard to her post ? - tell me what I posted prior to that that in anyway justified such intervention.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=47953&st=0&sk=t&sd= ... 90#p436408

I still intend to stay as best as I can on topic & humbly so.

Thanks

DSM

PS Jeff, the excert RG posted just above about the dissing incident was last year & immediately after RG had posted a somewhat similar one to what set this line off - IIRC it was all about how 'muddle headed' dsm was .

Really, this place is just like a schoolyard at times - I think it adds fun for some but it can be frustrating trying to navigate the slights & piques. But also, that is life in general.

D

DSM, I believe that RGs point was much the same as mine--that she is disturbed when you play fast and loose with the facts. Those of us who have been here a while understand that you are simply expressing your enthusiasm and getting carried away. However, newer ones may inadvertantly get misled when you misstate something. So I believe that Rested Gal and others are merely trying to be protective of newbies when they feel obligated to make pronouncements about your posts lacking in reliability in some ways. I honestly don't think it is personal, and I believe such statements would not be necessary if you were more careful. But that is only my opinion, and obviously I can't speak for anyone but me.

jnk wrote:DSM, I believe that RGs point was much the same as mine--that she is disturbed when you play fast and loose with the facts. Those of us who have been here a while understand that you are simply expressing your enthusiasm and getting carried away. However, newer ones may inadvertantly get misled when you misstate something. So I believe that Rested Gal and others are merely trying to be protective of newbies when they feel obligated to make pronouncements about your posts lacking in reliability in some ways. I honestly don't think it is personal, and I believe such statements would not be necessary if you were more careful. But that is only my opinion, and obviously I can't speak for anyone but me.

Jeff,

Sorry but what did I post in this thread that justified RGs quips. ? What do you think anyone would think when someone says that all your contributions are a mish-mash. What, posted prior to RG post was mish-mash.

DSM

dsm wrote:

jnk wrote:DSM, I believe that RGs point was much the same as mine--that she is disturbed when you play fast and loose with the facts. Those of us who have been here a while understand that you are simply expressing your enthusiasm and getting carried away. However, newer ones may inadvertantly get misled when you misstate something. So I believe that Rested Gal and others are merely trying to be protective of newbies when they feel obligated to make pronouncements about your posts lacking in reliability in some ways. I honestly don't think it is personal, and I believe such statements would not be necessary if you were more careful. But that is only my opinion, and obviously I can't speak for anyone but me.

Jeff,

Sorry but what did I post in this thread that justified RGs quips. ? What do you think anyone would think when someone says that all your contributions are a mish-mash. What, posted prior to RG post was mish-mash.

DSM

That is a perfectly valid question. The best answer I can think of is to suggest you read -SWS's posts veeeeery carefully when he responds to your statements.

I don't think my posts are any more reliable than yours on technical matters. But I try hard to couch my statements in a way that would make it clear to new ones that I am not an authority in any way. That makes my posts irritatingly wishy-washy, but I do that to protect people from swallowing what I say unquestioned, to keep them from giving my words more weight than they deserve. I can't say my approach is the best, but that is my choice. Rested Gal is one of the best I've ever seen at doing that.

On the other hand, when YOU use a lot of technical terms in a less careful way than some others and don't qualify your statements, it makes others feel the need to step up to qualify your statements for you. When they don't have the time to do that statement by statement, line by line, they tend to use phrases to discredit the whole for the casual reader. So I think you may be able to do much to keep that from happening. But I could be very, very wrong, myself. So take my take with a grain of salt.

jeff

Jeff

So there wasn't any specific post that justified it that you can see either

What you seem to be saying is DSM - modify your style. RG was justified in
her comments based on your style in this thread up to the point she posted her
quip.

Well, interestingly I thought I had & was doing a good job. But I too will try
even harder

Cheers & thanks

DSM