Mask is an important interface for CPAP (Continue Positive Airway Pressure) and BiPAP (Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure) treatments. A CPAP mask contacts with the patient's face daily and delivers the airflow into patients’ airway.
According to the literature , CPAP users may take the material and design of the mask (facial contact area), the overall convenience of usage and the mask fitness during sleep (air leakage ) into consideration when choosing a CPAP mask. Based on different facial features and sleep habits among patients, there is no one type of mask which is superior and can fit for all the needs . As a result, selecting the correct mask type and size to improve fitting can significantly increase patients’ adherence and satisfaction of the positive airway pressure treatment.
There is a range of mask options available for Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients. Those are generally classified into three categories depending on the way the pressurized air is supplied : Nasal masks, Oronasal (Full-face) masks and Nasal pillow masks. Nasal mask
1. The most common mask type for beginners
Oronasal (Full-face) mask
2. Patients breathe through their nose
3. Skin allergy or irritating
4. Beard keeper
5. Side sleeper
6. Prefer minimal contact on face
7. Patients with claustrophobia
1. Sleep with your mouth open
2. Patients with nose congestion or deviated nasal septum
3. Being prescribed a high therapeutic pressure level
4. The stability of the mask give you sense of security Nasal pillow mask
1. Sleep on your stomach or an active sleeper
2. Patients suffering from air leak into eyes
3. Patients with mustache or without upper teeth
4. Patients with difficult to obtain good sealing on nose bridge or cheeks
5. Night-time reader
6. Patients with claustrophobia
The discomfort and side effects derived from an unsuited mask can affect the willingness of continuous use. It is reported , on a long term basis, 20 to 25% of OSA patients discontinue CPAP treatment and the effectiveness of the PAP treatment decreases. The interface mask is, therefore, a key factor of positive airway pressure therapy. Choose your mask wisely to enjoy your therapy with ease!
Keep to see more about our mask series.
1. Brill, A., 2014. How to avoid interface problems in acute noninvasive ventilation. Breathe, 10(3), pp.230-242.
2. Bakker, J., Neill, A. and Campbell, A., 2011. Nasal versus oronasal continuous positive airway pressure masks for obstructive sleep apnea: a pilot investigation of pressure requirement, residual disease, and leak. Sleep and Breathing, 16(3), pp.709-716.
3. Dibra, M., Berry, R. and Wagner, M., 2017. Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Sleep Medicine Clinics, 12(4), pp.543-549.
4. Rowland, S., Aiyappan, V., Hennessy, C., Catcheside, P., Chai-Coezter, C., McEvoy, R. and Antic, N., 2018. Comparing the Efficacy, Mask Leak, Patient Adherence, and Patient Preference of Three Different CPAP Interfaces to Treat Moderate-Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 14(01), pp.101-108.
5. BaHammam, A., Singh, T., George, S., Acosta, K., Barataman, K. and Gacuan, D., 2017. Choosing the right interface for positive airway pressure therapy in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep and Breathing, 21(3), pp.569-575.
6. Inoue, A., Chiba, S., Matsuura, K., Osafune, H., Capasso, R. and Wada, K., 2019. Nasal function and CPAP compliance. Auris Nasus Larynx, 46(4), pp.548-558.
7. Edmonds, J., Yang, H., King, T., Sawyer, D., Rizzo, A. and Sawyer, A., 2015. Claustrophobic tendencies and continuous positive airway pressure therapy non-adherence in adults with obstructive sleep apnea. Heart & Lung, 44(2), pp.100-106.
8. Borel, J., Tamisier, R., Dias-Domingos, S., Sapene, M., Martin, F., Stach, B., Grillet, Y., Muir, J., Levy, P., Series, F. and Pepin, J., 2013. Type of Mask May Impact on Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Adherence in Apneic Patients. PLoS ONE, 8(5), p.e64382.
9. McLornan, P., Hansen, N. and Verrett, R., 2008. Customizing a nasal CPAP mask using a silicone elastomer. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 100(2), pp.147-152.