4.7 Article

Central sleep apnea in stable methadone maintenance treatment patients

Journal

CHEST
Volume 128, Issue 3, Pages 1348-1356

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1378/chest.128.3.1348

Keywords

central sleep apnea; hypercapnic ventilatory response; hypoxic ventilatory response; methadone

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study objectives: Methadone, a long-acting mu-opioid agonist, is an effective treatment for heroin addiction. Our previous data show that 6 of 10 methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) patients had central sleep apnea (CSA). This study aims to confirm these results and to investigate the pathogenesis of the CSA. Methods:Twenty-five male and 25 female MMT patients and 20 age-, sex-, and body mass index (BMI).-matched normal subjects were tested with polysomnography, blood toxicology, and ventilatory responses to hypoxia and hypercapnia. Resting cardiorespiratory tests were performed formed in the MMT group Results: MMT patients and normal subjects were 35 +/- 9 years old (mean +/- SD)and BMI values were 27 +/- 6 kg/m(2) and 27 +/- 5 kg/m(2), respectively. Thirty percent of MMT patients had a central apnea index (CAI) > 5, and 20% had a CAI > 10. All normal subjects had a CAI < 1, and no difference was found in obstructive apnea-hypopnea index between the two groups. Methadone blood concentration was the only significant variable (t = 2.33, p = 0.025) associated with CAI and explains 12% of the variance. Awake Paco(2), antidepressant use, reduced ventilatory response to hypereapnia, and widened awake alveolar-arterial oxygen pressure gradient together explain a further 17% of the CAI variance. Conclusions: Thirty percent of stable MMT patients have CSA, a minority of which can be explained by, blood methadone concentration. Other physiologic variables nu,v also play a role in the pathogenesis of CSA in MMT patients, and further research is indicated in this area.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available