4.5 Article

Neuromechanical control of upper airway patency during sleep

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 102, 期 2, 页码 547-556

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00282.2006

关键词

obstructive sleep apnea; critical pressure; mechanical properties; neuromuscular control

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01-RR-02719] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-37379, HL-50381, HL-68418] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Obstructive sleep apnea is caused by pharyngeal occlusion due to alterations in upper airway mechanical properties and/or disturbances in neuromuscular control. The objective of the study was to determine the relative contribution of mechanical loads and dynamic neuromuscular responses to pharyngeal collapse during sleep. Sixteen obstructive sleep apnea patients and sixteen normal subjects were matched on age, sex, and body mass index. Pharyngeal collapsibility, defined by the critical pressure, was measured during sleep. The critical pressure was partitioned between its passive mechanical properties ( passive critical pressure) and active dynamic responses to upper airway obstruction ( active critical pressure). Compared with normal subjects, sleep apnea patients demonstrated elevated mechanical loads as demonstrated by higher passive critical pressures [- 0.05 (SD 2.4) vs. -4.5 cmH(2)O ( SD 3.0), P = 0.0003]. Dynamic responses were depressed in sleep apnea patients, as suggested by failure to lower their active critical pressures [- 1.6 ( SD 3.5) vs. -11.1 cmH(2)O ( SD 5.3), P < 0.0001] in response to upper airway obstruction. Moreover, elevated mechanical loads placed some normal individuals at risk for sleep apnea. In this subset, dynamic responses to upper airway obstruction compensated for mechanical loads and maintained airway patency by lowering the active critical pressure. The present study suggests that increased mechanical loads and blunted neuromuscular responses are both required for the development of obstructive sleep apnea.

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