4.6 Review

Current evidence on prevalence and clinical outcomes of co-morbid obstructive sleep apnea and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE REVIEWS
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 58-68

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2016.02.007

关键词

Overlap syndrome; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA); Nocturnal oxygen desaturation (NOD); Prevalence; Clinical outcome; Polysomnography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence on prevalence, polysomnographic findings and clinical outcomes of co-morbid obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) known as the overlap syndrome. We systematically searched PubMed on 1 December 2015 using appropriate medical subject headings (MeSH) and text words to capture prevalence studies and comparative studies of any observational design examining the clinical outcomes in patients with co-existent COPD and OSA. We reviewed 591 articles and included 27 in the final review. In total, 21 observational studies (n = 29,341 participants) provided prevalence estimates. Overlap syndrome is not common in the general and hospital population (range: 1.0-3.6%), but is highly prevalent in patients diagnosed with either obstructive sleep apnea (range: 7.6-55.7%) or COPD (range: 2.9-65.9%). Overlap syndrome patients have been shown to have greater nocturnal oxygen desaturation (NOD) (i.e., reduced mean peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) and increased sleep time spent with SpO(2) < 90% (T90)) and worse sleep quality than patients with only OSA. It is associated with more frequent cardiovascular morbidity, poorer quality of life (QoL), more frequent COPD exacerbation and increased medical costs. This systematic review on overlap syndrome highlights the limitations and knowledge gaps of its prevalence, etiology and underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms related to increased morbidity and mortality. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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