4.6 Article

Continuous positive airway pressure does not reduce blood pressure in nonsleepy hypertensive OSA patients

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages 1229-1235

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00062805

Keywords

cardiovascular risk; continuous positive airway pressure; hypertension; obstructive sleep apnoea

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is associated with high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Several randomised controlled trials have shown that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment of OSA reduces blood pressure (BP). This randomised, sham-placebo controlled crossover trial assesses whether CPAP produces a similar clinically significant fall in BP in hypertensive OSA patients, but without hypersomnolence. Thirty-five, nonsleepy, hypertensive patients with OSA were treated with CPAP for 1 month, randomised first to either therapeutic or sham-placebo (subtherapeutic CPAP, about 1 cmH(2)O pressure). The second months' alternative treatment followed a 2-week washout period. BID was measured over 24 h, before and at the end of the two treatment periods: mean 24-h BP was the primary outcome variable. There was no overall significant difference in mean 24-h BP: the change in mean 24-h BP on therapeutic CPAP was -2.1 mmHg (SD 8.1), and -1.1 mmHg (SD 8.1) on subtherapeutic CPAP, with a difference of 0.7 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI) +2.9- -4.4). There was a small significant fall in Epworth Sleepiness Score, therapeutic (-1.4) versus sham (-0.3), and difference -1.2 (95% Cl -2.0- -0.4), but no change in objective sleepiness. In nonhypersomnolent hypertensive patients with obstructive sleep apnoea, there is no significant fall in mean 24-h blood pressure with continuous positive airway pressure, in contrast to the fall seen in hypersomnolent patients with obstructive 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