4.6 Article

Trilevel adaptive servoventilation for the treatment of central and mixed sleep apnea in chronic heart failure patients

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 422-427

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2012.12.013

关键词

Adaptive servoventilation; Heart failure; Sleep-disordered breathing; Cheyne-Stokes respiration; Mixed sleep apnea; Positive airway pressure therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) inpatients with heart failure (HF) is of major prognostic impact, though treatment of simultaneously occurring central and mixed apnea events is challenging. The objective was to examine long-term effects of a new trilevel adaptive servoventilation (ASV) therapy in patients with systolic or diastolic HF. Methods: A total of 45 consecutive patients with a history of HF, elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide levels, objective signs of cardiac dysfunction, and moderate to severe SDB (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] >= 15/h) with combined central and mixed respiratory events were included in this study and ASV therapy (SOMNOvent CR, Weinmann) was offered. Results: In 38 patients (84%), ASV therapy was successfully initiated, with 23 (51%) patients showing appropriate compliance (device use >= 4 h/night for >= 5 d/w) after 3.6 +/- 1.2 months. In these patients ASV therapy and HF status were re-evaluated. A sustained reduction was achieved in AHI (42.8 +/- 17.5/h vs 8.9 +/- 5.8/h; p < 0.001) and oxygen saturation. Improvements also were recorded in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class (2.4 +/- 0.5-1.9 +/- 0.4; p < 0.001) and oxygen uptake during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (VO2 peak, 13.64 +/- 3.5-15.8 +/- 5.8 ml/kg/min; p < 0.002). Conclusion: In selected HF patients, trilevel ASV therapy is able to treat SDB with combined central and mixed respiratory events. This treatment is associated with an improvement in HF symptoms and objective cardiopulmonary performance. (c) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据