4.6 Article

Effect of CPAP on blood pressure in patients with minimally symptomatic obstructive sleep apnoea: a meta-analysis using individual patient data from four randomised controlled trials

期刊

THORAX
卷 69, 期 12, 页码 1128-1135

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-204993

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background CPAP reduces blood pressure (BP) in patients with symptomatic obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). Whether the same benefit is present in patients with minimally symptomatic OSA is unclear, thus a meta-analysis of existing trial data is required. Methods The electronic databases Medline, Embase and trial registries were searched. Trials were eligible if they included patients with minimally symptomatic OSA, had randomised them to receive CPAP or either sham-CPAP or no CPAP, and recorded BP at baseline and follow-up. Individual participant data were obtained. Primary outcomes were absolute change in systolic and diastolic BP. Findings Five eligible trials were found (1219 patients) from which data from four studies (1206 patients) were obtained. Mean (SD) baseline systolic and diastolic BP across all four studies was 131.2 (15.8) mm Hg and 80.9 (10.4) mm Hg, respectively. There was a slight increase in systolic BP of 1.1 mm Hg (95% CI -0.2 to 2.3, p=0.086) and a slight reduction in diastolic BP of 0.8 mm Hg (95% CI -1.6 to 0.1, p=0.083), although the results were not statistically significant. There was some evidence of an increase in systolic BP in patients using CPAP <4 h/night (1.5 mm Hg, 95% CI -0.0 to 3.1, p=0.052) and reduction in diastolic BP in patients using CPAP >4 h/night (-1.4 mm Hg, 95% CI -2.5 to -0.4, p=0.008). CPAP treatment reduced both subjective sleepiness (p<0.001) and OSA severity (p<0.001). Interpretation Although CPAP treatment reduces OSA severity and sleepiness, it seems not to have a beneficial effect on BP in patients with minimally symptomatic OSA, except in patients who used CPAP for >4 h/night.

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