4.8 Article

Obstructive sleep apnea and the recurrence of atrial fibrillation

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 107, 期 20, 页码 2589-2594

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000068337.25994.21

关键词

fibrillation; sleep; apnea; cardioversion

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01-RR-00585] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-70602, HL-61560, HL-65176] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-We tested the hypothesis that patients with untreated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) would be at increased risk for recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) after cardioversion. Methods and Results-We prospectively obtained data on history, echocardiogram, ECG, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, NYHA functional class, ejection fraction, left atrial appendage velocity, and medications in patients with AF/atrial flutter referred for DC cardioversion. Forty-three individuals were identified as having OSA on the basis of a previous sleep study. Data regarding the use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and recurrence of AF were obtained for 39 of these patients. Follow-up data were also obtained in 79 randomly selected postcardioversion patients (controls) who did not have any previous sleep study. Twenty-seven of the 39 OSA patients either were not receiving any CPAP therapy (n=25) or were using CPAP inappropriately (n=2). Recurrence of AF at 12 months in these 27 patients was 82%, higher than the 42% recurrence in the treated OSA group (n=12, P=0.013) and the 53% recurrence (n=79, P=0.009) in the 79 control patients. Of the 25 OSA patients who had not been treated at all, the nocturnal fall in oxygen saturation was greater (P=0.034) in those who had recurrence of AF (n=20) than in those without recurrence (n=5). Conclusions-Patients with untreated OSA have a higher recurrence of AF after cardioversion than patients without a polysomnographic diagnosis of sleep apnea. Appropriate treatment with CPAP in OSA patients is associated with lower recurrence of AF.

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

4.8
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