4.0 Article

CPAP TREATMENT IN THE COEXISTENCE OF OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP APNEA SYNDROME AND METABOLIC SYNDROME, RESULTS OF ONE YEAR FOLLOW UP

期刊

ACTA CLINICA BELGICA
卷 64, 期 4, 页码 329-334

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1179/acb.2009.051

关键词

Obstructive steep apnea; metabolic syndrome; CPAP treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the effect of one year continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment on metabolic syndrome (MS) prevalence and components in patients diagnosed with both obstructive steep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and metabolic syndrome. Methods: This was a single center, observational prospective cohort study. 38 patients who were diagnosed with OSAS after polysomnographic analysis in steep laboratory and diagnosed with MS according to National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) guideline and underwent CPAP treatment were followed for one year. After the 1 year of follow up period on CPAP treatment, the prevalence of MS was evaluated again. Results: 20 (13 mate, 7 female) of 38 patients completed the entire study. Mean age was 50 +/- 7.7.4 patients were under treatment for diabetes mellitus (DM), 9 for hypertension (HT). After one year of follow up on CPAP treatment, the prevalence of MS decreased by 45%. When each components of MS were evaluated, no significant difference was found in fasting blood glucose, triglyceride levels and systolic and diastolic blood pressure after treatment (p>0.05). However, significant difference was observed in waist circumference (p=0.002), HDL cholesterol (p=0.001) and BMI (p=0.01) after treatment. Discussion: If MS accompanies OSAS, which is a cardiovascular risk factor by itself, treatment indications of CPAP should be reevaluated. Thus, if OSA patients meet the criteria of MS even though they do not have obvious DM, HT and hyperlipidemia, initiating CPAP treatment at lower AHI levels may contribute to the prevention and development of cardiovascular disease.

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

4.0
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