4.2 Article

Smoking history and its relationship with comorbidities in patients with obstructive sleep apnea

期刊

TOBACCO INDUCED DISEASES
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EUROPEAN PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.18332/tid/123429

关键词

obstructive sleep apnea; smoking; comorbidities; polysomnography

资金

  1. medical science and technology program of Ningbo, China [2019Y01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

INTRODUCTION Current knowledge on the correlation between smoking and comorbidities associated with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is limited. This study evaluated the smoking history of OSA patients and analyzed the association between smoking and OSA comorbidities. METHODS Retrospective analysis was performed in newly diagnosed OSA patients in our hospital, a tertiary medical center, from January 2016 to December 2019. In all, 1021 patients were enrolled and divided into two groups, nonsmokers (n=796) and current/former smokers (n=225), in order to compare their clinical manifestations and polysomnographic results and to analyze the association between smoking and comorbidities. RESULTS Compared with the non-smokers, the current/former smokers had higher Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) scores (9.3 +/- 4.0 vs 8.5 +/- 5.1; p<0.05), longer sleep latency (SL) [20.5 (12.3-39.3) vs 18.5 (10.0-34.0) minutes; p<0.05], and a lower nocturnal mean oxygen saturation (91.8 +/- 3.6% vs 92.8 +/- 3.4%; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) between the two groups. OSA patients with a history of smoking had significantly increased risk of hypertension (OR=2.09; 95% CI: 1.46-3.01), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR= 9.80; 95% CI: 4.73-20.33), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (OR=1.97; 95% CI: 1.19-3.27), and chronic pharyngitis (OR=1.83; 95% CI: 1.32-2.54). CONCLUSIONS No significant association was found between previous smoking history and current OSA severity. OSA patients with a history of smoking had an increased risk of hypertension, COPD, GERD, and chronic pharyngitis.

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

4.2
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