4.6 Review

The effect of CPAP and PDE5i on erectile function in men with obstructive sleep apnea and erectile dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

SLEEP MEDICINE REVIEWS
Volume 48, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2019.101217

Keywords

Obstructive sleep apnea; Erectile dysfunction; Continuous positive airway pressure; Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors

Funding

  1. Department of Science Technology of Jinan city [201805030]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Growing evidence has shown that obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and erectile dysfunction (ED) often coexist. However, the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on erectile function remains controversial. The objective of this review was to clarify the anti-ED effect of CPAP and further compare the efficacy between CPAP, phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) and combination therapy on erectile function in OSA patients concurrent ED. Literature search was performed up to December 1st, 2018 and 26 studies were included in the review. Results showed that CPAP significantly ameliorated the international index of erectile function (IIEF) score, total erectile events (TEE) and nocturnal penile rigidity (NPR), while no significant improvements in nocturnal penile tumescence circumference (NPTC). Moreover, CPAP was inferior to PDE5i in improving IIEF-erectile function, IIEF-intercourse satisfaction, NPTC, successful attempted intercourses rate (SAIR) and erectile dysfunction inventory of treatment satisfaction-question one (EDITS-Q1), while CPAP and PDE5i were of equal efficacy in other domains of IIEF and NPR. Interestingly, CPAP was more effective in improving TEE. Furthermore, CPAP combined with PDE5i was superior to CPAP alone in improving IIEF score, SAIR, and TEE. This review provided promising insights about CPAP-based ED treatment for OSA patients. (c) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available