CPAPtalk.com

avi123 wrote:

NotMuffy wrote:

rested gal wrote:"Almost 90% of COPD is caused by long-term cigarette smoking, yet only 25% of chronic tobacco smokers will go on to develop COPD."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 223425.htm

Nor is it known how much PN had smoked before she quit (if it was only a couple cigarettes per day for a few years, then it's NBD).

Or, if she does have a touch of COPD but it's mild (no CO2 retention), then she is not automatically excluded per ResMed Algorithm Rules.

Question:

Why don't you ask if Nanny was tested for COPD? A simple Spirometry test and X-Ray could indicate?

Un!#%ingbelievable.

del

I hate to contribute to this thread going off track, but since we're 18 pages in and this keeps being an issue over and over again, I'll bite.

Avi, rested gal is not "cherry picking" or "twisting" anything. This is an issue of precision in English, and she is correct. If a person were to say "Birds fly," it is commonly and properly assumed that you you mean "all" or "virtually all." If only a sub-population should be characterized, then it is proper to use an adjective such as "some" or "certain" or "select" to modify your subject.

When you say, "Long time smokers develop COPD," you are implying all or virtually all. If that isn't what you mean, then just as is the case with the birds example above, you need to add the word "some" or "many" to the start of your sentence.

Since you recognized your error and edited your original post, why are you blasting rested gal?

I realize you post trying to be helpful, but you need to be mindful that how you express yourself and the words that you use are just as important as your intent.

del

avi123 wrote: So how should I have worded it?

If it's 20% then is it a few, some, several, or what? And if it is 20% why not pay attention to it?

Honestly, any adjective would be better than no adjective at all. All of the ones you just used would be better than none at all. As for why we should pay attention to 20%: in medical terms, even a tiny percentage can be very relevant. For example, if a drug to treat a condition has a mortality rate of 0.1% associated with it, that's highly relevant! The issue of statistical significance (i.e., certainty about a statistic and its likely range) is often relevant regardless of the magnitude (i.e., absolute value) of the statistic in question.

avi123 wrote:Brian, at this point let me ask you this: why this thread which keeps being an issue over and over again, I'll bite, while your endless threads on the issues of your situation are not?

I don't understand what you are asking.

del

No, not at all. I think Paper_Nanny has lots of very valid and still-unanswered questions. In fact, she probably has more questions now than when she began this thread! I think this thread not only continues to help her deal with her medical team, but also educates and informs the rest of us who are following it.

NotMuffy wrote:

Paper_Nanny wrote:...When I get my PFT done on Tuesday, are there results that can be given to me at that time which would of use to you?

They're all useful. Given your smoking history, even the flows could be askew. But try to grab the MIP - MEP.

I will grab the MIP and the MEP and as much other stuff as I possibly can.

Ah, yes, my smoking history. I quit smoking almost seven years ago. Prior to that, I smoked cigarettes for approximately 22 years, averaging approximately 10 cigarettes per day. I also smoked marijuana approximately three times a week for about a year, averaging a very small amount each time I smoked. I was extremely hypersensitive to the effects of it and was almost always cut off after two or three hits by by one of the few friends who would smoke with me, unless we were smoking Dave Roloff's marijuana, in which case, I was only allowed to inhale the second hand smoke. He always had the good stuff.

Paper_Nanny wrote:Option Two: Unnamed Nose Mask
The velcro on the chin strap gets tangled up in my dreadlocks. It's a comfortable mask for a few days at a time. It has very little Dead Space.

I went with Option Two last night. Graphs to follow.

NotMuffy wrote:Un!#%ingbelievable.

Yes. Very much so. Had I not been rendered speechless, I may have said the same.

NotMuffy wrote:If you have your mouth open with that mask, you could end up purging the oropharynx and actually reducing Vd.

If I didn't know what that meant, I would probably be hesitant to ever use the Quattro because reducing Vd by purging my oropharynx sounds like something that would necessitate the sheets being changed afterwards. And who wants to be doing that in the middle of the night?!?

Deborah

Paper_Nanny wrote:

NotMuffy wrote:If you have your mouth open with that mask, you could end up purging the oropharynx and actually reducing Vd.

If I didn't know what that meant, I would probably be hesitant to ever use the Quattro because reducing Vd by purging my oropharynx sounds like something that would necessitate the sheets being changed afterwards. And who wants to be doing that in the middle of the night?!?

Deborah

ROTFL!!!!

I don't think this thread is a waste of time. We are just killing some time till you get your results back. I'm very interested both because of your personal story but also because an acquaintance of mine h as MS, although not at the stage of having trouble breathing. The bits of knowledge about how the body regulates breathing are fascinating. So many systems all contributing their information and their requirement. It reminds me of how they split up water rights and demands on a river system.

Less dead space in the nose mask, and this is what my sleep looked like 07-09 to 07-10. Had to take the mask off after 5.5 hours because it hurt. Too much pressure on the not yet completely healed break. Tonight I hope to use the Quattro.

Paper_Nanny wrote:Less dead space in the nose mask, and this is what my sleep looked like 07-09 to 07-10. Had to take the mask off after 5.5 hours because it hurt. Too much pressure on the not yet completely healed break. Tonight I hope to use the Quattro.

My 1st impressions - that actually looks ok except for the pattern of hypops - but depending on your condition (better understood by NotMuffy) maybe the hypos are acceptable as perhaps increasing the epap-ipap gap might complicate the situation.

So it sort of looks like the reduced deadspace helped ?

DSM

At this point, there are a number of questions that have arisen for which I must admit to be at a total loss for possible solutions. For instance:

• In re: the poster who considers this thread a waste of time and who shall remain nameless
  

  avi123 wrote:... this thread keeps going endlessly and it's not really important...

  How is it that he is the third most prolific poster, surpassed only by the principal combatants (participators):
  
  
• Would not P&Ming about a thread that is a waste of time REALLY be a waste of time?
• With 36,815 children dying of starvation every day, why is this person allowed to consume valuable Earth's resources?

A few more questions/points that may fall into the "Irrelevant" category:

• CompSAS and central apnea (edited to add "many")(Ooops! Need to say "most"!)(Ooops! It's probably "all"!)(Ooops! Then maybe I should have just left it alone!)
  
  ...I forgot what I was going to say...
  
  ...oh yeah...
  
  ...events usually subside during REM. Based on the sleep studies your REM seems fairly predictable (at about 5.0 - 5.5 hours latency. While this last DL may have been too short to short REM, there are certainly enough other DLs to examine that, and it does not appear that that occurs in your case. Maybe Quattro will show that if you go > 6.0 hours.
• The CO2 issue (is it hypocarbia or hypercarbia) may be more clearly defined on Tuesday, but if it's a sleep-related central issue (or sleep fragmentation issue) then probably not. Regardless, those results are invaluable, both now and for the future to track MS.
• Can you UL the DLs somewhere? I think closer scrutiny of the waveform data is next on the list.
• The initial titration was very aggressive. With what amounted to a normal NPSG re: SBD, the decision was made to go straight to BiPAP. A trial of low-level CPAP would have been, as is now, a very viable option. Ask your guy that, I'd really like to hear the rationale for clubbing 41 obstructive events to death with an ASV.
• Why is it that phpBB will sometimes allow a "/" to go through, and other times go berserk (think it's an html command)?

NotMuffy wrote:Why is it that phpBB will sometimes allow a "/" to go through, and other times go berserk (think it's an html command)?

/destroy_planet_asteroid_impact

Drat.

Nothin".