Differences in power consumption of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices

<bold>Objective:</bold> CPAP is the most common treatment for obstructive sleep apnea but it's electrical consumption (EC) is unknown despite its economic and ecological impact. Our aim was to compare the EC of 6 CPAP devices and to assess the impact of a humidification system (HS). <bold>Methods:</bold> Each device (A to F) was bench tested at pressures from 4 to 20 cmH2O, without and with HS. Real-life data from 40818 patients were extrapolated at the national level to compare the potential impact on EC and related costs of using the most energy-efficient device versus the most energy-consuming one (using 200€/ Gigawatt-hour (GWH)). <bold>Results:</bold> Compared with the device with the lower EC (device B), EC varied from +6% to +40% depending on the device (p<0.001). EC increased linearly with pressure level. The addition of a HS increased the EC with an average increase of +345% (+250% to +395% (p<0.001)). Patients from the cohort were treated by 75% of A, 5% of B, 3% of C, 1% of D, 15% of E, and 1% of F with a mean compliance of 6.9 hours, a mean pressure of 7 cmH2O for one year. Fitting the entire French population with the least energy-intensive CPAP device (B) without HS would result in savings of 111680 GWH and 22M€ per year compared to a widespread of the most energy-intensive CPAP (C) with HS. <bold>Conclusion:</bold> The choice of CPAP, its settings and the addition of a HS have a major impact on EC, on the cost and ultimately on the carbon footprint linked to EC. <fig><object-id>erj;64/suppl_68/OA5437/F1</object-id><object-id>F1</object-id><object-id>F1</object-id><graphic></graphic></fig>