Search

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea is associated with increased blood pressure (BP). Obstructive sleep apnea treatment reduces BP with substantial variability, not explained by the apnea-hypopnea index, partly due to inadequate characterization of obstructive sleep apnea's physiological consequences, such as oxygen desaturation, cardiac autonomic response, and suboptimal treatment efficacy. We sought to examine whether a high baseline heart rate response (ΔHR), a marker of high cardiovascular risk in obstructive sleep apnea, predicts a larger reduction in post-treatment systolic BP (SBP). Furthermore, we aimed to assess the extent to which a reduction in SBP is explained by a treatment-related reduction in hypoxic burden (HB)., Methods: ΔHR and HB were measured from pretreatment and posttreatment polygraphy, followed by a 24-hour BP assessment in 168 participants treated with continuous positive airway pressure or nocturnal supplemental oxygen from the HeartBEAT study (Heart Biomarker Evaluation in Apnea Treatment). Multiple linear regression models assessed whether high versus mid (reference) ΔHR predicted a larger reduction in SBP (primary outcome) and whether there was an association between treatment-related reductions in SBP and HB., Results: A high versus mid ΔHR predicted improvement in SBP (adjusted estimate, 5.8 [95% CI, 1.0-10.5] mm Hg). Independently, a greater treatment-related reduction in HB was significantly associated with larger reductions in SBP (4.2 [95% CI, 0.9-7.5] mm Hg per 2 SD treatment-related reduction in HB). Participants with substantial versus minimal treatment-related reductions in HB had a 6.5 (95% CI, 2.5-10.4) mm Hg drop in SBP., Conclusions: A high ΔHR predicted a more favorable BP response to therapy. Furthermore, the magnitude of the reduction in BP was partly explained by a greater reduction in HB., Competing Interests: Disclosures A. Azarbarzin receives grant support from Somnifix and serves as a consultant for Somnifix, Respicardia, Eli Lilly, and Apnimed; Apnimed is a developing pharmacological treatment for obstructive sleep apnea. A. Azarbarzin’s interests were reviewed by Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Mass General Brigham in accordance with their institutional policies. S. Sands receives personal fees as a consultant for Nox Medical, Apnimed, Merck, and Inspire outside the submitted work, and he has received grant support from Apnimed, Prosomnus, and Dynaflex. A. Wellman works as a consultant for Apnimed, Somnifix, Inspire, and Nox Medical. He has received grants from Somnifix and Regeneron. He has a financial interest in Apnimed, a company developing pharmacological therapies for sleep apnea. His interests were reviewed and are managed by Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Partners HealthCare in accordance with their conflict of interest policies. C. Schmickl reports income from consulting for Verily outside the submitted work. A. Malhotra is funded by the National Institutes of Health. He reports income related to medical education from Livanova, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Zoll. ResMed provided a philanthropic donation to University of California San Diego. S. Redline received consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Inc, and Jazz Pharma and has consulted for Apnimed, Inc. D.J. Gottlieb has served on scientific advisory boards for Signifier Medical Technologies, Inc, and Wesper, Inc, and as a consultant to Powell-Mansfield, Inc, and Apnimed, Inc, and has received research support from ResMed, Inc. The other authors report no conflicts.

Rationale: The physiological factors modulating the severity of snoring have not been adequately described. Airway collapse or obstruction is generally the leading determinant of snore sound generation; however, we suspect that ventilatory drive is of equal importance. Objective: To determine the relationship between airway obstruction and ventilatory drive on snore loudness. Methods: In 40 patients with suspected or diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea (1-98 events/hr), airflow was recorded via a pneumotachometer attached to an oronasal mask, ventilatory drive was recorded using calibrated intraesophageal diaphragm electromyography, and snore loudness was recorded using a calibrated microphone attached over the trachea. "Obstruction" was taken as the ratio of ventilation to ventilatory drive and termed flow:drive, i.e., actual ventilation as a percentage of intended ventilation. Lower values reflect increased flow resistance. Using 165,063 breaths, mixed model analysis (quadratic regression) quantified snore loudness as a function of obstruction, ventilatory drive, and the presence of extreme obstruction (i.e., apneic occlusion). Results: In the presence of obstruction (flow:drive = 50%, i.e., doubled resistance), snore loudness increased markedly with increased drive (+3.4 [95% confidence interval, 3.3-3.5] dB per standard deviation [SD] change in ventilatory drive). However, the effect of drive was profoundly attenuated without obstruction (at flow:drive = 100%: +0.23 [0.08-0.39] dB per SD change in drive). Similarly, snore loudness increased with increasing obstruction exclusively in the presence of increased drive (at drive = 200% of eupnea: +2.1 [2.0-2.2] dB per SD change in obstruction; at eupneic drive: +0.14 [-0.08 to 0.28] dB per SD change). Further, snore loudness decreased substantially with extreme obstruction, defined as flow:drive <20% (-9.9 [-3.3 to -6.6] dB vs. unobstructed eupneic breathing). Conclusions: This study highlights that ventilatory drive, and not simply pharyngeal obstruction, modulates snore loudness. This new framework for characterizing the severity of snoring helps better understand the physiology of snoring and is important for the development of technologies that use snore sounds to characterize sleep-disordered breathing.

Rationale: Obstructive sleep apnea is characterized by frequent reductions in ventilation, leading to oxygen desaturations and/or arousals. Objectives: In this study, association of hypoxic burden with incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) was examined and compared with that of "ventilatory burden" and "arousal burden." Finally, we assessed the extent to which the ventilatory burden, visceral obesity, and lung function explain variations in hypoxic burden. Methods: Hypoxic, ventilatory, and arousal burdens were measured from baseline polysomnograms in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) and the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) studies. Ventilatory burden was defined as event-specific area under ventilation signal (mean normalized, area under the mean), and arousal burden was defined as the normalized cumulative duration of all arousals. The adjusted hazard ratios for incident CVD and mortality were calculated. Exploratory analyses quantified contributions to hypoxic burden of ventilatory burden, baseline oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry, visceral obesity, and spirometry parameters. Measurements and Main Results: Hypoxic and ventilatory burdens were significantly associated with incident CVD (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] per 1 SD increase in hypoxic burden: MESA, 1.45 [1.14, 1.84]; MrOS, 1.13 [1.02, 1.26]; ventilatory burden: MESA, 1.38 [1.11, 1.72]; MrOS, 1.12 [1.01, 1.25]), whereas arousal burden was not. Similar associations with mortality were also observed. Finally, 78% of variation in hypoxic burden was explained by ventilatory burden, whereas other factors explained only <2% of variation. Conclusions: Hypoxic and ventilatory burden predicted CVD morbidity and mortality in two population-based studies. Hypoxic burden is minimally affected by measures of adiposity and captures the risk attributable to ventilatory burden of obstructive sleep apnea rather than a tendency to desaturate.

Rationale: A low respiratory arousal threshold is a key endotype responsible for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) pathogenesis. Pimavanserin is an antiserotoninergic capable of suppressing CO 2 -mediated arousals without affecting the respiratory motor response in animal models, and thus it holds potential for increasing the arousal threshold in OSA and subsequently reducing OSA severity. Objectives: We measured the effect of pimavanserin on arousal threshold (primary outcome), OSA severity, arousal index, and other OSA endotypes (secondary outcomes). Methods: A total of 18 OSA participants were studied in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Patients received a single dose of placebo or pimavanserin 34 mg 4 hours before in-lab polysomnography. Airflow was measured with an oronasal mask attached to a pneumotachograph, and ventilatory drive was recorded with an intraesophageal electromyography catheter. Results are presented as mean or median changes (Δ) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Pimavanserin did not increase the arousal threshold, nor did it decrease OSA severity or arousal index. It, however, prolonged total sleep time (Δ[confidence interval (CI)], 39.5 [95%CI, -1.2 to 80.1] min). In an exploratory analysis, a subgroup of seven patients who had a 10% or more increase in arousal threshold on pimavanserin exhibited a decrease in AHI 4 (hypopneas associated with 4% desaturation) (Δ[CI], 5.6 [95%CI, 3.6-11.1] events/h) and hypoxic burden (Δ[CI], 22.3 [95%CI, 6.6-32.3] %min/h). Conclusions: A single dose of pimavanserin did not have a significant effect on arousal threshold or OSA severity. However, in a post hoc analysis, a subset of patients who exhibited an increase in arousal threshold on pimavanserin showed a small decrease in OSA severity. Thus, if the arousal threshold could be increased with pimavanserin, perhaps with longer dosing to reach higher drug blood concentrations, then the desired effect on OSA severity might be achievable. Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04538755).

Rationale: Randomized controlled trials of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have not demonstrated protection against adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Recently, observational studies revealed that OSA-related cardiovascular risk is concentrated in patients with an elevated pulse rate response to respiratory events (ΔHR). Objectives: Here, in this post hoc analysis of a prospective clinical trial, we test the hypothesis that a greater pretreatment ΔHR is associated with greater CPAP-related protection against adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: ΔHR was measured from baseline polysomnography of the RICCADSA (Randomized Intervention with CPAP in CAD and OSA) randomized controlled trial (patients with coronary artery disease [CAD] and OSA [apnea-hypopnea index ⩾ 15 events/h] with Epworth Sleepiness Scale score < 10; n CPAP : n control  = 113:113; male, 85%; age, 66 ± 8 [mean ± SD] yr). The primary outcome was a composite of repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality. Multivariable Cox regression assessed whether the effect of CPAP was moderated by ΔHR (treatment-by-ΔHR interaction). Measurements and Main Results: The CPAP-related reduction in risk increased progressively with increasing pretreatment ΔHR (interaction hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.49 [0.27 to 0.90] per SD increase in ΔHR; P  < 0.05). This means that in patients with a ΔHR of 1 SD above the mean (i.e., 10 beats/min), CPAP was estimated to reduce cardiovascular risk by 59% (6% to 82%) ( P  < 0.05), but no significant risk reduction was estimated in patients with a mean ΔHR (6 beats/min; CPAP risk reduction, 16% [-53% to 54%]; P  = 0.6). Conclusions: The protective effect of CPAP in patients with CAD and OSA without excessive sleepiness was modified by the ΔHR. Specifically, patients with higher ΔHR exhibit greater cardiovascular benefit from CPAP therapy.

Rationale: Mouth breathing increases upper airway collapsibility, leading to decreased efficacy of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treatments. We hypothesized that the use of mandibular advancement devices (MAD) increases mouth breathing, and thus, using an adhesive mouthpiece (AMT) to prevent mouth breathing in combination with MAD can improve the treatment efficacy. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of MAD + AMT in comparison with MAD alone. Methods: A prospective crossover pilot study was designed to test this hypothesis. Briefly, adult participants with an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) between 10 and 50 events/h at the screening visit were randomized to no treatment (baseline), MAD treatment, AMT treatment, and MAD + AMT treatment. As a primary analysis, absolute AHI was compared between MAD and MAD + AMT arms. Secondary analyses included quantifying the percent change in AHI, percentage of complete (AHI < 5 events/h) and incomplete (5-10 events/h) responders, and the efficacy of AMT alone in comparison with other treatment arms. Results: A total of 21 participants were included (baseline AHI = 24.3 ± 9.9 events/h). The median AHI (interquartile range) in the MAD and MAD + AMT arms were 10.5 (5.4-19.6) events/h and 5.6 (2.2-11.7) events/h ( P  = 0.02), respectively. A total of 76% of individuals achieved an AHI of <10 events/h in the MAD + AMT arm versus 43% in the MAD arm ( P  < 0.01). Finally, the observed effect was similar in moderate to severe OSA (AHI ⩾ 15 events/h) in terms of absolute reduction and treatment responders, and AMT alone did not significantly reduce the AHI compared with baseline. Conclusions: A combination of an adhesive mouthpiece and MAD is a more effective therapy than MAD alone. These findings may help improve clinical decision making in sleep apnea.

Study Objectives: Obstructive sleep apnea has major health consequences but is challenging to treat. For many therapies, efficacy is determined by the severity of underlying pharyngeal collapsibility, yet there is no accepted clinical means to measure it. Here, we provide insight into which polysomnographic surrogate measures of collapsibility are valid, applicable across the population, and predictive of therapeutic outcomes., Methods: Seven promising polysomnography-derived surrogate collapsibility candidates were evaluated: Vpassive (flow at eupneic ventilatory drive), Vmin (ventilation at nadir drive), event depth (depth of the average respiratory event), oxygen desaturation slope and mean oxygen desaturation (events-related averages), Fhypopneas (fraction of events scored as hypopneas), and apnea index. Evaluation included (1) validation by comparison to physiological gold-standard collapsibility values (critical closing pressure, Pcrit), (2) capacity to detect increased collapsibility with older age, male sex, and obesity in a large community-based cohort (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, MESA), and (3) prediction of treatment efficacy (oral appliances and pharmacological pharyngeal muscle stimulation using atomoxetine-plus-oxybutynin)., Results: Pcrit was significantly correlated with Vmin (r = -0.54), event depth (r = 0.49), Vpassive (r = -0.38), Fhypopneas (r = -0.46), and apnea index (r = -0.46; all p < .01) but not others. All measures detected greater collapsibility with male sex, age, and obesity, except Fhypopneas and apnea index which were not associated with obesity. Fhypopneas and apnea index were associated with oral appliance and atomoxetine-plus-oxybutynin efficacy (both p < .05)., Conclusions: Among several candidates, event depth, Fhypopneas, and apnea index were identified as preferred pharyngeal collapsibility surrogates for use in the clinical arena., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Sleep Research Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Rationale: REM sleep is associated with reduced ventilation and greater obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) severity than non-REM (nREM) sleep for reasons that have not been fully elucidated. Objectives: Here, we use direct physiological measurements to determine whether the pharyngeal compromise in REM sleep OSA is most consistent with 1 ) withdrawal of neural ventilatory drive or 2 ) deficits in pharyngeal pathophysiology per se (i.e., increased collapsibility and decreased muscle responsiveness ). Methods: Sixty-three participants with OSA completed sleep studies with gold standard measurements of ventilatory "drive" (calibrated intraesophageal diaphragm EMG), ventilation (oronasal "ventilation"), and genioglossus EMG activity. Drive withdrawal was assessed by examining these measurements at nadir drive (first decile of drive within a stage). Pharyngeal physiology was assessed by examining collapsibility (lowered ventilation at eupneic drive) and responsiveness (ventilation-drive slope). Mixed-model analysis compared REM sleep with nREM sleep; sensitivity analysis examined phasic REM sleep. Measurements and Main Results: REM sleep (⩾10 min) was obtained in 25 patients. Compared with drive in nREM sleep, drive in REM sleep dipped to markedly lower nadir values (first decile, estimate [95% confidence interval], -21.8% [-31.2% to -12.4%] of eupnea; P  < 0.0001), with an accompanying reduction in ventilation (-25.8% [-31.8% to -19.8%] of eupnea; P  < 0.0001). However, there was no effect of REM sleep on collapsibility (ventilation at eupneic drive), baseline genioglossus EMG activity, or responsiveness. REM sleep was associated with increased OSA severity (+10.1 [1.8 to 19.8] events/h), but this association was not present after adjusting for nadir drive (+4.3 [-4.2 to 14.6] events/h). Drive withdrawal was exacerbated in phasic REM sleep. Conclusions: In patients with OSA, the pharyngeal compromise characteristic of REM sleep appears to be predominantly explained by ventilatory drive withdrawal rather than by preferential decrements in muscle activity or responsiveness. Preventing drive withdrawal may be the leading target for REM sleep OSA.