4.5 Article

Sleep apnea: State of the art

期刊

TRENDS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE
卷 27, 期 4, 页码 280-289

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
DOI: 10.1016/j.tcm.2016.12.005

关键词

Heart disease; Heart failure; Sleep disordered breathing; Sleep apnea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many patient with, or at risk of, cardiovascular disease have sleep disordered breathing (SDB), which can be either obstructive (with intermittent collapse of the upper airway) or central (episodic loss of respiratory drive). SDB is associated with sleep disturbance, hypoxemia, hemodynamic changes, and sympathetic activation. Such patients have a worse prognosis than those without SDB. Mask based therapies of positive airway pressure targeted at SDB can improve measures of sleep quality and partially normalize the sleep and respiratory physiology, but recent randomized trials of cardiovascular outcomes in SDB have either been neutral (obstructive sleep apnea) or suggested the possibility of harm, likely from increased sudden death, in central sleep apnea. Alternative methods for the treatment of SDB are being explored, including implantable technologies, but these have not been studied in adequately powered randomized controlled studies. International guidelines recommend screening for SDB, which can be done easily in clinical practice, as there may be a role for the treatment of patients with obstructive sleep apnea and daytime sleepiness, or resistant hypertension, or atrial fibrillation. Further randomised outcome studies are required to determine whether mask-based treatment for SDB is appropriate for patients with chronic systolic heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea; for those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; and for those with decompensated heart failure. The case is made that no longer can the surrogate endpoints of improvement in respiratory and sleep metrics be taken as adequate therapeutic outcome measures in patients with sleep apnea and 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

4.5
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