Search

Rationale: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is prevalent in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and is a cause of secondary hypertension. Objectives: To explore the long-term effects of OSA and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment on blood pressure (BP) in patients with ACS. Methods:Post hoc analysis of the ISAACC study (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Obstructive Sleep Apnea; NCT01335087) included 1,803 patients admitted for ACS. Patients with OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI], ⩾15 events/h) were randomly assigned to receive either CPAP or usual care and were seen in follow-up for 1-5 years. Office BP was determined at each visit. Results: We included 596 patients without OSA, 978 patients in the usual care or poor CPAP adherence group, and 229 patients in the good CPAP adherence group. At baseline, 52% of the patients were diagnosed with hypertension. Median (25th to 75th percentile) age and body mass index were 59 (52.0 to 67.0) years and 28.2 (25.6 to 31.2) kg/m2, respectively. After a median (25th to 75th percentile) follow-up of 41.2 (18.3 to 59.6) months, BP changes were similar in the OSA and non-OSA groups. However, we observed an increase in BP in the third tertile of the AHI (AHI, >40 events/h), with a maximum difference in mean BP of +3.3 mm Hg at 30 months. Patients with OSA with good CPAP adherence (⩾4 h/night) reduced mean BP after 18 months compared with patients with usual care/poor CPAP adherence, with a maximum mean difference (95% confidence interval) of -4.7 (-6.7 to -2.7) mm Hg. In patients with severe OSA, we observed a maximum mean difference of -7.1 (-10.3 to -3.8) mm Hg. Conclusions: In patients with ACS, severe OSA is associated with a long-term increase in BP, which is reduced by good CPAP adherence. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01335087). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Primary care clinicians may be well placed to play a greater role in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) management. Objectives: To evaluate the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of sleep apnea management in primary versus specialist care, using an individual-participant data meta-analysis to determine whether age, sex, severity of OSA, and daytime sleepiness impacted outcomes. Methods: Data sources were the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid SP, Scopus, ProQuest, U.S. National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, and ISRCTN registry (inception until 09-25-2019). Hand searching was undertaken. Two authors independently assessed articles and included trials that randomized adults with a suspected diagnosis of sleep apnea to primary versus specialist management within the same study and reported daytime sleepiness using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (range 0-24; >10 indicates pathological sleepiness; minimum clinically important difference 2 units) at baseline and follow-up. Results: The primary analysis combined data from 970 (100%) participants (four trials). Risk of bias was assessed (Cochrane Tool). One-stage intention-to-treat analysis showed a slightly smaller decrease in daytime sleepiness (0.8; 0.2 to 1.4), but greater reduction in diastolic blood pressure in primary care (-1.9; -3.2 to -0.6 mm Hg), with similar findings in the per-protocol analysis. Primary care-based within-trial healthcare system costs per participant were lower (-$448.51 U.S.), and quality-adjusted life years and daytime sleepiness improvements were less expensive. Similar primary outcome results were obtained for subgroups in both management settings. Conclusions: Similar outcomes in primary care at a lower cost provide strong support for implementation of primary care-based management of sleep apnea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Conversely, OSA has not been shown to increase recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This lack of homogeneity could suggest that the deleterious effect of OSA and its contribution to CVD could depend on specific patient profiles.Objectives: To evaluate the effect of OSA on cardiovascular risk for patients with different ACS phenotypes.Methods:Post hoc analysis of the ISAACC (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Patients with ACS and OSA) study, including 1,701 patients admitted for ACS (NCT01335087). To evaluate the presence of OSA (apnea-hypopnea index ≥ 15 events · h-1), all patients underwent polygraphy. Patients were followed up for a minimum period of 1 year. We performed nonsupervised clustering using latent class analysis to identify subgroups of patients on the basis of 12 clinical factors associated with cardiovascular risk. The effect of OSA on recurrent cardiovascular event risk was evaluated for each phenotype identified.Measurements and Main Results: Two phenotypes were identified: patients without previous heart disease and without previous ACS ("no-previous-CVD" phenotype; 81%) and patients with previous heart disease and previous ACS ("previous-CVD" phenotype; 19%). The median (interquartile range) at follow-up was 2.67 (3.8) years. For the no-previous-CVD phenotype, the effect of OSA showed an adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 1.54 (1.06-2.24; P value = 0.02), whereas for the previous-CVD phenotype, the effect of OSA showed an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.69 (0.46-1.04; P value = 0.08).Conclusions: For patients with ACS and a specific phenotype, OSA is associated with an increased risk of recurrent cardiovascular events. These patients are mainly characterized by no previous heart disease and admission for a first ACS occurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Hospitalized patients with acute-on-chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure due to obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) have increased short-term mortality. It is unknown whether prescribing empiric positive airway pressure (PAP) at the time of hospital discharge reduces mortality compared with waiting for an outpatient evaluation (i.e., outpatient sleep study and outpatient PAP titration).Objectives: An international, multidisciplinary panel of experts developed clinical practice guidelines on OHS for the American Thoracic Society. The guideline panel asked whether hospitalized adult patients with acute-on-chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure suspected of having OHS, in whom the diagnosis has not yet been made, should be discharged from the hospital with or without empiric PAP treatment until the diagnosis of OHS is either confirmed or ruled out.Methods: A systematic review with individual patient data meta-analyses was performed to inform the guideline panel's recommendation. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to summarize evidence and appraise quality.Results: The literature search identified 2,994 articles. There were no randomized trials. Ten studies met a priori study selection criteria, including two nonrandomized comparative studies and eight nonrandomized noncomparative studies. Individual patient data on hospitalized patients who survived to hospital discharge were obtained from nine of the studies and included a total of 1,162 patients (1,043 discharged with PAP and 119 discharged without PAP). Empiric noninvasive ventilation was prescribed in 91.5% of patients discharged on PAP, and the remainder received empiric continuous PAP. Discharge with PAP reduced mortality at 3 months (relative risk 0.12, 95% confidence interval 0.05-0.30, risk difference -14.5%). Certainty in the estimated effects was very low.Conclusions: Hospital discharge with PAP reduces mortality following acute-on-chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure in patients with OHS or suspected of having OHS. Well-designed clinical trials are needed to confirm this finding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) is an undesirable consequence of obesity. Weight loss is an important component of management based on clinical rationale, but the evidence supporting weight loss has not been summarized and the optimal approach has not been determined.Objectives: This systematic review informed an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts who had converged to develop a clinical practice guideline on OHS for the American Thoracic Society. The panel asked, "Should a weight loss intervention be performed in patients with OHS?"Methods: Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from January 1946 to March 2019 for studies that assessed weight loss interventions in obese adults with confirmed OHS, suspected OHS, or hypercapnia. The quality of the evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.Results: The search identified 2,994 articles. Six studies were selected, including two randomized trials and four nonrandomized studies without a comparator. Sample size ranged from 16 to 63 subjects. The studies found that a comprehensive weight loss program (including motivational counseling, dieting, and exercise) can reduce weight by 6% to 7% but confers no clinically significant effects compared with standard care. Bariatric surgery, on the other hand, is associated with more robust weight loss (15-64.6%, depending on the type of intervention), reduction of obstructive sleep apnea severity (18-44% reduction of the apnea-hypopnea index), and improvement in gas exchange (17-20% reduction in partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the arterial blood), ultimately leading to the resolution of OHS. Moreover, daytime sleepiness and pulmonary artery pressure also improve with significant weight loss. Bariatric surgery is associated with adverse effects in roughly one-fifth of patients, but serious adverse effects are very rare. The level of certainty in the estimated effects was very low for most outcomes.Conclusions: The guideline panel for which the systematic review was performed made a conditional (i.e., weak) recommendation suggesting a weight loss intervention for patients with OHS, targeting a sustained weight loss of 25% to 30% of actual body weight. This recommendation was based on very low-quality evidence. Although the weight loss target is based on the observation that greater weight loss is associated with better outcomes, there is a need for better-quality studies to ascertain the degree of weight loss necessary to achieve improvement in clinically relevant outcomes in patients with OHS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) is an undesirable complication of severe obesity. Although weight loss is an accepted component of management, it is difficult to achieve and sustain the degree of weight loss necessary to reverse OHS. As such, positive airway pressure (PAP) during sleep has become the cornerstone therapy for most patients with OHS. However, the value of PAP therapy remains uncertain.Objective: To perform a systematic review to determine whether adults with OHS should be treated with PAP therapy or not.Methods: This systematic review informed an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts who had converged to develop a clinical practice guideline on OHS for the American Thoracic Society. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from January 1946 to March 2019 for studies that compared PAP therapy (i.e., continuous PAP or noninvasive ventilation) to no PAP therapy in patients with OHS. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to appraise the quality of evidence.Results: The search identified 2,994 unique articles. The full text of 56 articles was reviewed, and 25 studies were selected, including 3 randomized trials, 12 nonrandomized comparative studies, and 10 randomized and nonrandomized studies without a comparator group. Sample size ranged from 21 to 1,527 patients. PAP was associated with increased resolution of OHS and improvements in mortality, gas exchange, daytime sleepiness, sleep quality, quality of life, and emergency department visits. Nearly half of patients experienced trivial adverse effects related to PAP therapy. Certainty in the estimated effects was low or very low for most outcomes.Conclusions: The panel made a conditional (i.e., weak) recommendation that PAP therapy during sleep be offered to patients with OHS to improve outcomes. This recommendation was based on very low-quality evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) is an undesirable consequence of obesity. Treatment consists of weight loss and positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. However, the preferred mode of PAP is uncertain.Objectives: To perform a systematic review to determine whether PAP therapy should be initiated as noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or continuous PAP (CPAP) in ambulatory patients with OHS.Methods: This systematic review informed an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts who had converged to develop a clinical practice guideline on OHS for the American Thoracic Society. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from January 1946 to March 2019 for studies that compared initial treatment with NIV to CPAP in OHS. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to appraise the quality of evidence.Results: The search identified 2,994 potentially relevant articles, the full text of 21 articles was reviewed, and five articles were selected. The five articles included three randomized trials (one reported as two articles) and an observational study. The sample size ranged from 36 to 225 subjects. The evidence showed no differences in mortality, cardiovascular events, and healthcare resource use between patients with OHS treated with NIV or CPAP. Both PAP modalities were similarly effective in improving gas exchange, the need for supplemental oxygen, daytime sleepiness, sleep quality, quality of life, dyspnea, and sleep-disordered breathing. There was also no significant difference in adherence to NIV or CPAP therapy. Certainty in the estimated effects was low or very low for some outcomes. Therefore, the conditional recommendation was based on very low-quality evidence.Conclusions: The panel made a conditional (i.e., weak) recommendation that CPAP rather than NIV be offered as the first-line treatment to stable ambulatory patients with OHS and coexistent severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The effectiveness of CPAP is similar to that of NIV, but NIV is more costly and requires more resources than CPAP. Given that approximately 70% of patients with OHS have coexistent severe OSA, this recommendation applies to the great majority of patients with stable OHS, but it should not be extrapolated to patients with OHS without severe OSA. Patients of advanced age, with poor lung function, or with greater or recent acute ventilatory failure may not respond adequately to CPAP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]