CPAPtalk.com

NotMuffy wrote:90% of stupid is still stupid.

I like that.

NotMuffy wrote:

Wulfman wrote:It also leads me to believe that those clusters and the higher leakage at those times are due to supine sleeping.

Also a superior reason why P90 may miss the boat.

However, in this case, I don't think that's the reason.

Maybe not. It's just that if someone asked me to critique that report, some of those things jump out at me and would lead me to ask some further questions along the lines I mentioned. Whether the person might have GERD would be another question I would ask, too. I just know I would be a wreck after a night of trying to sleep with all that going on.

For the sake of the argument of "using 90/95% numbers", it really doesn't matter.......and that's a good example you chose.

EDIT: I also would be asking the person if Central Apneas showed up in their sleep study. I suppose "Pressure-Induced Centrals" could look like that (there are about 5 "NR" flags on that report), but I would think that a Respironics machine would back off on the pressure sooner than that, under those circumstances.


Den

NotMuffy wrote:90% of stupid is still stupid.

I love it too.

Forgive me but I haven't been part of your tests but I have read many, many of your posts and I know you like to give tests.
Can we have a hint what you were looking for in a response?

That posted report would look a lot like mine would at that minimum pressure, which improved somewhat but still left a lot of clusters in REM at my titrated 8 cm and you see from the reports I posted above that 10 cm minimum does me very well. About a month ago I reduced minimum to 9 cm just to see what would happen... Clusters returned. Not to the extent as the report you posted but returned enough to get my attention and impact how I feel. So for me minimum pressure is critical to optimize my therapy.

When I first started therapy and was dealing with leaks, I quickly saw that 90% pressure was easily screwed with and never really paid much attention to it except in passing.

Wulfman wrote:EDIT: I also would be asking the person if Central Apneas showed up in their sleep study. I suppose "Pressure-Induced Centrals" could look like that...

They could...

Pugsy wrote:Can we have a hint what you were looking for in a response?

Sure.

We know this person.

NotMuffy wrote: Pugsy wrote:Can we have a hint what you were looking for in a response?


Sure.

We know this person.

Not fair, report dated 07, I wasn't here then. Though it does look familiar but I can't put my finger on it. Likely just a coincidence.

Can you tell us why this person was given APAP with such a range to start with?

Did this person have a history of centrals in sleep study or the titration study?

Pugsy wrote:Did this person have a history of centrals in sleep study or the titration study?

Did she ever...

It's None Other Than...

NotMuffy wrote:Did she ever...

Aha, that is who Den thought it was and I agreed. We couldn't find one of her exact reports like you posted but he found where she listed the data off the report and it was so close to what this report showed.

I suppose the moral of this story is that the 90% number is just a number and it is much more important to look at the whole picture and not dwell on one number to "fix" things. Which is what I have said all along. It's just a number that may or may not be relative to therapy needed. Easily mislead for any number of reasons so it can't be trusted to always speak the truth.

NotMuffy wrote:

Pugsy wrote:Did this person have a history of centrals in sleep study or the titration study?

Did she ever...

It's None Other Than...

Yep. I can't imagine why I suspected that person , but this is the thread I initially found:

viewtopic/t24935/HELPStill-having-177-O ... -Auto.html

And then the one you linked when I was looking up "GERD".

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35298&p=302713&hilit=+GERD#p302713

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.


Den