Now with a reduced Flex setting

tetragon wrote:

deltadave wrote:

tetragon wrote:Why does it seem that on nights with a "high" clear airway event list and a "high" pressure pulse count, I feel better in the morning? I should probably track that to see if there is any relation.

How "high" is "high"?

The reason for the quotation marks is that in the numbers are actually quite low in the grand scheme of things.

A good point. If your Spontaneous Arousal Index remains in the 20's, those 24 CAAs pale in comparison to the 120-150 Arsponts (although in actuality, the CAAs are probably a result of Arsponts).

deltadave wrote:

tetragon wrote:

deltadave wrote:

tetragon wrote:Why does it seem that on nights with a "high" clear airway event list and a "high" pressure pulse count, I feel better in the morning? I should probably track that to see if there is any relation.

How "high" is "high"?

The reason for the quotation marks is that in the numbers are actually quite low in the grand scheme of things.

A good point. If your Spontaneous Arousal Index remains in the 20's, those 24 CAAs pale in comparison to the 120-150 Arsponts (although in actuality, the CAAs are probably a result of Arsponts).

While I don't have much detail about my two nights wired up, I do have a rather generically named "arousal index" figure.
Before titration arousal index: 22.1
Titration arousal index: 21.7

tetragon wrote:

deltadave wrote:

tetragon wrote:

deltadave wrote:

tetragon wrote:Why does it seem that on nights with a "high" clear airway event list and a "high" pressure pulse count, I feel better in the morning? I should probably track that to see if there is any relation.

How "high" is "high"?

The reason for the quotation marks is that in the numbers are actually quite low in the grand scheme of things.

A good point. If your Spontaneous Arousal Index remains in the 20's, those 24 CAAs pale in comparison to the 120-150 Arsponts (although in actuality, the CAAs are probably a result of Arsponts).

While I don't have much detail about my two nights wired up, I do have a rather generically named "arousal index" figure.
Before titration arousal index: 22.1
Titration arousal index: 21.7

Well, that's certainly the number you have to get to < 5.0 (or 0.0 for the OCD crowd) to fix...

What is it we're trying to fix again?

deltadave wrote:What is it we're trying to fix again?

My efficiency at being a yawn vector? I think I may be able to speed up the transmission of yawns if I carry an open jar of loose camomile tea with me.

tetragon wrote:

deltadave wrote:What is it we're trying to fix again?

My efficiency at being a yawn vector?

Since Vyawn has several additional components besides Arousal Index, including:

• Total Sleep Time
• Sleep Efficiency
• Awakenings
• Sleep Stage%
• Sleep Architecture (yet this is a somewhat more subjective rather than objective analysis)

it may be a good idea to review those areas for possibilities as well.

deltadave wrote:

tetragon wrote:

deltadave wrote:What is it we're trying to fix again?

My efficiency at being a yawn vector?

Since Vyawn has several additional components besides Arousal Index, including:

• Total Sleep Time
• Sleep Efficiency
• Awakenings
• Sleep Stage%
• Sleep Architecture (yet this is a somewhat more subjective rather than objective analysis)

it may be a good idea to review those areas for possibilities as well.

I don't have all that data from my studies. I have total sleep time (163 and 270 minutes), sleep efficiency (34.0% and 55.0%), percentage in REM (22.4% and 11.8%), percentage in slow wave sleep (19.0% and 18.9%), sleep lantency (43.0 and 26.5 minutes), and REM latency (333.5 minutes and 172.0 minutes). Outside the realm of controlled conditions and measurements, my current sleep efficiency is probably better than it was then and the cute, little graphs my Zeo displays are marred by it deciding to flag numerous brief awakenings throughout the night.

tetragon wrote:Outside the realm of controlled conditions and measurements, my current sleep efficiency is probably better than it was then...

That's good, because at 55.0% Sleep Efficiency (SE), you'd need to improve an additional 20% just to get out of SEsuck.

deltadave wrote:

tetragon wrote:Outside the realm of controlled conditions and measurements, my current sleep efficiency is probably better than it was then...

That's good, because at 55.0% Sleep Efficiency (SE), you'd need to improve an additional 20% just to get out of SEsuck.

What wasn't mentioned in anything I saw was that while they used the improved titration SE as justification for starting CPAP, the environmental conditions were rather different. I went from a room that was too hot with an uncomfortable bed that made a ticking noise every time I moved that was in a high-traffic area, to a comfortable one. In both nights I had to deal with the lighting being old, cheap, flickery office fluorescents of the type that gives passers-by headaches and fuzzyheadedness.

Night 5:

I'm still at C-Flex+ 1. I might change it on Wednesday.

What a night. And due to so many reasons.

I normally sleep with the windows open as otherwise my apartment, a corner bachelor with windows on both side, gets very stuffy fast. The wind hit just the right angle to flow through and chill the arm that wasn't in my down nest. One time I woke up was to drag it in to warm it.

I decided to try my S pillows as my XS one is a bit on the soft side. At 2am I remembered why the S set wasn't getting soft when I woke up with my nose hurting in the same place as it had every time I had used that size previously. In what seems to be my usual style of waking up with mask issues, it was sudden, with me turning off the machine and yanking off the mask. I switched out the sizes, dodged the drips of water, reduced my intestinal pressure, and ended up using a bit of the gel I have to stop the hurting. All this without turning on the lights. It helps that the headgear connector is keyed. It doesn't help that the air is cold enough that my breath condenses and gets stuck in the pillows.

It took longer than usual to be ready for sleep. When I was poking at the algorithms in my copy of SleepyHead, I found that I had completely gapped on the equation of a line in 2-space. I was not happy at having to look that up. It's one thing to need to review RANSAC, it's another to forget a simple equation that I've been using for years. Next term is going to be fun.

Still, I survived the night to have a chocolate luncheon. A hazard of where I work is the crates of snacks that arrive at this time of year. I have observed that Thornton's truffles are greatly preferred over Lindor, and that everyone breathed a sigh of relief when the last box of the day ended up being a massive tin of popcorn, as opposed to yet more chocolate.

tetragon wrote:Outside the realm of controlled conditions and measurements, my current sleep efficiency is probably better than it was then and the cute, little graphs my Zeo displays are marred by it deciding to flag numerous brief awakenings throughout the night.

Can you post some Zeo Sleep Graphs?

tetragon wrote:

deltadave wrote:

tetragon wrote:Outside the realm of controlled conditions and measurements, my current sleep efficiency is probably better than it was then...

That's good, because at 55.0% Sleep Efficiency (SE), you'd need to improve an additional 20% just to get out of SEsuck.

What wasn't mentioned in anything I saw was that while they used the improved titration SE as justification for starting CPAP...

If that was the only reason, then there was no reason.

deltadave wrote:

tetragon wrote:Outside the realm of controlled conditions and measurements, my current sleep efficiency is probably better than it was then and the cute, little graphs my Zeo displays are marred by it deciding to flag numerous brief awakenings throughout the night.

Can you post some Zeo Sleep Graphs?

I can plot and upload some tonight. My current dearth of Internet bandwidth (hooray for not having an extortionate bill) means I won't be in a suitable location (a coffee shop) for another twelve hours (but not for coffee, and I wish the one I was going to made a better steamer).

tetragon wrote:Then came a daylight savings switch that wasn't handled well...

"Fall back" is an especially interesting time for us ASPD guys.

deltadave wrote:

tetragon wrote:

deltadave wrote:

tetragon wrote:Outside the realm of controlled conditions and measurements, my current sleep efficiency is probably better than it was then...

That's good, because at 55.0% Sleep Efficiency (SE), you'd need to improve an additional 20% just to get out of SEsuck.

What wasn't mentioned in anything I saw was that while they used the improved titration SE as justification for starting CPAP...

If that was the only reason, then there was no reason.

It brought my AHI from 11.4 down to 1.6? (with a pre-titration RDI of 16.5). The doctor I ended up with thought that my insomnia was a much bigger issue than sleep apnea. But since he decided that he wanted an MSLT, I got titrated. (From what I was told, the MSLT was normal, and I really wish they had soundproof walls)

(editied to correct a number)

tetragon wrote:

deltadave wrote:

tetragon wrote:

deltadave wrote:

tetragon wrote:Outside the realm of controlled conditions and measurements, my current sleep efficiency is probably better than it was then...

That's good, because at 55.0% Sleep Efficiency (SE), you'd need to improve an additional 20% just to get out of SEsuck.

What wasn't mentioned in anything I saw was that while they used the improved titration SE as justification for starting CPAP...

If that was the only reason, then there was no reason.

It brought my AHI from 10.6 down to 1.6? (with a pre-titration RDI of 16.5).

For the whole study or just a snippet?

For example, the stability of SWS (the sleep stage, not the person) will pretty much disallow respiratory events.

deltadave wrote:

tetragon wrote:

deltadave wrote:

tetragon wrote: What wasn't mentioned in anything I saw was that while they used the improved titration SE as justification for starting CPAP...

If that was the only reason, then there was no reason.

It brought my AHI from 10.6 down to 1.6? (with a pre-titration RDI of 16.5).

For the whole study or just a snippet?

For example, the stability of SWS (the sleep stage, not the person) will pretty much disallow respiratory events.

It turns out I had grabbed an incorrect number there, but as for what numbers I have, pre-titration I was told 11.4 overall, 10.6 supine, 4.9 REM. The 1.6 figure is for just at the chosen pressure of 7, which they mentioned included supine REM.