CPAPtalk.com

dsm wrote: I said that 'Mixed Apnea' can be a central that becomes an obstruction or an obstruction that can become a central.

Are you saying that this is *not* the case ???. It is a pretty easy reply to make, yes or no !.

-SWS wrote:
<snip>

By contrast, below you are clearly talking about a single clinical event and not an overall medical "condition":

dsm wrote: I said that 'Mixed Apnea' can be a central that becomes an obstruction or an obstruction that can become a central.

Are you saying that this is *not* the case ???. It is a pretty easy reply to make, yes or no !.

So above you are clearly referring to single mixed events---not multiple events. You then break the above single event into two scenarios : 1) a medically acknowledged singular clinical event that starts off central and then turns to obstructive, as well as 2) a much more hypothetical singular clinical event that would start off obstructive and then turn central.

<snip>

dsm wrote:Further "an obstruction that can become a central" doen't 'clearly' say a single-event ?

-SWS wrote:

dsm wrote:Further "an obstruction that can become a central" doen't 'clearly' say a single-event ?

Well, if your statement "an obstruction that can become a central" referred to an entire sequence of multiple events rather than but one changing mixed event, then I suspect you were debating a different animal than ozij and rested gal had been discussing...

One is an entire breed of mixed lineage while the other is but a lonely mutt.

dsm wrote:No no no no - I never mentioned a string of events

dsm wrote:I had not seen any description of Mixed Apnea that 'clearly' stated that Mixed Apnea was a single event & my response very clearly shows this !.

ozij wrote:The only way of arriving at a technical truth is by discussing it over and over, until the facts are clear.

Confused -SWS wrote:Were you referring to "mixed apnea" as:
1) a single event that begins central or obstructive before turning opposite before that same event's completion,
2) a single event that causes a followup opposite-type event (more than one SDB event),
3) an overall condition reflected by some central events and some obstructive events---sometimes even having single mixed events thrown in,
4) some combination of the above three items,
5) none of the above, but something altogether different

dsm wrote:Now here is another point for learning & debate. In your definition above I understand we can talk of at least 2 ways of identifying Mixed Apnea - the way you already described, plus - an apnea that starts out as obstructive and becomes a central. I am no expert but that is what I understand & will be happy to have this clarified by polite debate should that POV be wrong.

dsm wrote:Steve,

I already told you, I was referring in particular to this ...

MIXED SLEEP Apnea (Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier).
"a condition marked by signs and symptoms of both central sleep apnea and obstructive sleep apnea.
It often begins as central sleep apnea and develops into the obstructive form. Mixed sleep apnea
may also result from obstructive sleep apnea as hypoxia and hypercapnia induce signs and symptoms
of the central form."

dsm wrote:But tell me, is an apnea a single event situation or can an apnea be a dual event situation ? as in CSA becomes OSA might be described as a dual situation in a single event & an OSA that becomes a CSA might be described as a pair of situations as a related thus 'tied' event ???

On refelection commonsense says an apnea is a single event but I have long ago learned that commonsense means zilch when one gets into a debate with a bunch of very intelligent people and the medical community definitions

ozij wrote:The only way of arriving at a technical truth is by discussing it over and over, until the facts are clear.

dsm wrote:SWS

Not to be confrontaional - I stopped replying because no matter what I said you would re-interpret it and feed it back as something I had said that to me I hadn't !!! - more it seems to suit your agenda. This I have come to now realise is the pattern. In fact I will say it has underpinned so many interactions in the past. But, hopefully I am slowly learning (yes I am a bit slow in this regard).

There are so many times in the past I would say something only to have you manipulate it to some meaning I had never even though of and as if I had said it the way you reinterpreted it - often my humour was turned into some sort of peronal attack on you then RestedGal would butt in with some outrageous attack on me as being 'a techo wannabe' - 'muddle-headed' - 'delivering a mish-mash' etc: etc: etc:
I find that trying to discuss some things with you as like being in a tag wrestling match in a mud bath with you & RestedGal taking it in turns to do me over sheesh it is such a challenge & here we are where it has happened yet again. RestedGal buts in - delivers her customery insult - then you show up - or you reinterpret something I say as negative & RestedGal turns up & delivers her insult. Lord spare me from tag-wrestling with you two. Especially when it is in a bath of mud (unclear & hard to see the object)

I repeat the following ...

MIXED SLEEP Apnea (Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier).
"a condition marked by signs and symptoms of both central sleep apnea and obstructive sleep apnea.
It often begins as central sleep apnea and develops into the obstructive form. Mixed sleep apnea
may also result from obstructive sleep apnea as hypoxia and hypercapnia induce signs and symptoms
of the central form."

Now if this statement is incorrect we should contact the publisher & tell them to either
- remove it
- qualify it, or
- rewrite it

I am happy to follow through once we agree what it should be !

DSM

ozij wrote:The only way of arriving at a technical truth is by discussing it over and over, until the facts are clear.