4.3 Article

Obstructive sleep apnea and urological comorbidities in males: a population-based study

Journal

SLEEP AND BREATHING
Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 1203-1208

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11325-016-1336-x

Keywords

Obstructive sleep apnea; Urology; Comorbidity; Prostatitis; Prostate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to investigate associations between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and urological comorbidities using a large population-based dataset. This cross-sectional study used the Taiwan Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2005. We included 1236 males with OSA in the study group and 4944 males without OSA in the comparison group. Conditional logistic regressions were performed to examine relationships between OSA and urological comorbidities. We found that patients with OSA had significantly greater prevalences of hypertrophy of the prostate (15.13 vs. 7.28 %), chronic prostatitis (4.37 vs. 2.16 %,), urinary incontinence (3.32 vs. 0.87 %), nocturia (2.02 vs. 0.61 %), erectile dysfunction (2.91 vs. 0.97 %), urinary calculi (12.06 vs. 6.80 %), and prostate cancer (0.97 vs. 0.40 %) than the comparison group. Additionally, the adjusted odds ratios in males with OSA for hypertrophy of prostate, chronic prostatitis, urinary incontinence, nocturia, erectile dysfunction, urinary calculi, and prostate cancer were 2.54 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.05 similar to 3.15), 1.95 (95 % CI 1.38 similar to 2.74), 4.13 (95 % CI 2.63 similar to 6.50), 3.54 (95 % CI 2.03 similar to 6.18), 2.95 (95 % CI 1.89 similar to 4.61), 1.89 (95 % CI 1.53 similar to 2.33), and 2.14 (95 % CI 1.03 similar to 4.43) than those without OSA, respectively. This study concluded that males with OSA had higher odds ratios of hypertrophy of the prostate, chronic prostatitis, urinary incontinence, nocturia, erectile dysfunction, urinary calculi, and prostate cancer than comparison group.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available