CPAPtalk.com

Rlwphd wrote:I have used it three nights and I can state unequivocally that it works well for my moderate apnea. The design is excellent and the engineering behind it is logical. Even though I am offering my subjective results the incontrovertible fact is that the system should perform well. It is defintely worth trying as an alternative or even substitute for CPAP.

"the incontrovertible fact is that the system should perform well" Have you looked at the comparisons between Provent and CPAP?

I use Provent for travel. My sleep doctor told me I'm a close to ideal case for Provent, and has no problem prescribing it for me on that basis, but he still wants me on APAP for normal home use.

pats wrote:I use Provent for travel. My sleep doctor told me I'm a close to ideal case for Provent, and has no problem prescribing it for me on that basis, but he still wants me on APAP for normal home use.

Some thoughts...

Articles I've seen have not been able to identify who will succeed and who will fail on Provent, so I'm surprised that your sleep doc can tell you're an "ideal case".

I don't understand why your doctor would think it's OK for travel but not for home use. If it's as effective as CPAP for you, which could only be established by a sleep study, it should be equally OK to use it at home as when traveling. If it's less effective than CPAP, then he's basically making the decision for you that convenience outweighs its decreased efficacy. Given that he hasn't done a sleep study of you on Provent, it seems there's no basis for his preference one way or the other.

SleepingUgly wrote:I don't understand why your doctor would think it's OK for travel but not for home use. If it's as effective as CPAP for you, which could only be established by a sleep study, it should be equally OK to use it at home as when traveling. If it's less effective than CPAP, then he's basically making the decision for you that convenience outweighs its decreased efficacy. Given that he hasn't done a sleep study of you on Provent, it seems there's no basis for his preference one way or the other.

Of course there is a trade-off between convenience and efficacy. Why not? I make trade-offs between life-and-death safety and convenience all the time, and quite often make them in favor of convenience.

In a couple of days, I'm going to fly to London, just because I enjoy going to museums etc. and want to see some relatives. Obviously, there is some risk involved - not just the relatively safe activity of long distance air travel on a scheduled airline, but really dangerous things like road travel between Heathrow Airport and central London, and crossing roads in a very congested city. Later today I plan to drive to some shops. I know perfectly well that driving on California freeways involves a significant risk of serious injury or death, and it would be safer to do without some non-essential but nice-to-have items, or arrange to have them delivered. It is more convenient for me to go shopping.

I see no reason to treat convenience as having zero value when it comes to my sleep apnea treatment.

My sleep doctor did not discuss his reasoning, so I don't know the criteria he used. However, no matter how helpful I have found this group on issues of living with sleep apnea, for specific medical advice on my individual treatment I do prefer a qualified specialist who had reviewed my sleep study, the downloaded data from my APAP, and my general medical history.

There's no problem with valuing convenience. But you wrote your original post in such a way that one can infer that your doctor, a medical professional, prefers you on APAP, which suggests to the reader that he thinks APAP is more effective. I'm just clarifying that he doesn't know how effective Provent is or is not unless he's done a sleep study with you on it.

Early in this thread it was proposed to attach a Provent to a mask and so you can use it over and over. It would seem the easiest way to do that would be to use a CPR rescue mask.

BTW I use the non-prescription version or Provent called TheraVent with great success. I'm going to try the mask idea...

Nice to know about the TheraVent - and it's half as much as the original.

Professor Stradling last year said provent failed it`s trail last year

Meant to say failed it`s trial last year. I use apap and have been on treatment since last June.

The forum will not allow you to register as sleeping ugly since there is already a member with that name.

I'm new here. have had the government and medical mishandling my severe obstructive/central apnea since 2001. Presently I use a sleep aid to get me into deep sleep for the first part of the night and then after 4 to 5 hours slowly start going into apnea sleep over the next 3 to 4 hours. It's not ideal but it allows me to stay alert and active during the day. one big minus is that I still suffer the longer term effect of apnea.

4 years ago I got a new doctor, and the very first thing I did was tell him I do not tolerate CPAP, I take it off within 90 min of falling asleep. But he insisted that we use it as the "unrealistic" sleep study they did suggested that it did work. Anyway so for the last 3 years he has been trying mask after mask with no success. Recently I told him I was fed up with him lot listening to me that CPAP was not for me and we NEEDED to find something else.

So that brings me to Provent. I used it for the first time last night with the ease in 3 phase system. I have never been a mouth breather and don't so that in itself is going to be a battle as my mouth just naturally closes. trying to keep it open till I fell asleep kept me awake for the hour and half that I tried the system and that's only on the first phase. I was so praying that this was going to work and I will continue to try the entire 30 days but it dose not take a genius to see 3 very clear things with this. 1) is that even on the first phase it was doing a little bit of what it claims, there was definite back pressure created and it was holding the jaw further out than normal. 2) If your not a mouth breather it may be a problem getting used to these. 3) these were defiantly designed this way to create a positive monthly cash flow for the company.