4.6 Article

Positive effect of CPAP treatment on the control of difficult-to-treat hypertension

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages 951-957

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00048606

Keywords

ambulatory blood pressure monitorisation; continuous positive airway pressure; difficult-to-control hypertension; refractory hypertension; sleep apnoea

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the present study was to analyse the role of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment in patients with difficult-to-control hypertension (DC-HT) and sleep apnoea. An Autoset(TM) (ResMed, Sydney, Australia) study was performed in 60 patients diagnosed with DC-HT based on two 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitorisation (ABPM) studies. CPAP was offered to patients with an apnoea/hypopnoea index (AHI) >= 15 events.h(-1). After 3 months of treatment, repeat ABPM was performed to evaluate the effect of CPAP upon the blood pressure values. A total of 39 (65%) patients received CPAP treatment, but only 33 completed the study. The mean+/-SD systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP, respectively) were 154.8+/-14 and 90+/-8.8 mmHg. Patients had a mean+/-SD AHI of 37.7+/-18.2 events.h(-1). Only three patients presented a dipper nocturnal pressure pattern. CPAP treatment significantly reduced SBP (-5.2 mmHg), and particularly the nocturnal values (-6.1 mmHg), but not DBP. Considering only those patients who tolerated CPAP, the decrease in SBP was greater (-7.3 mmHg). Furthermore, CPAP treatment significantly increased the percentage of patients who recovered the dipper pattern (three (9.1%) out of 33 versus 12 (36.4%) out of 33). Continuous positive airway pressure treatment significantly reduces systolic blood pressure, particularly at night, and normalises the nocturnal pressure pattern in patients with difficult-to-control hypertension and sleep apnoea.

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