3.8 Article

Clinical predictors of nocturia in the sleep apnea population

期刊

UROLOGY ANNALS
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 31-35

出版社

MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS & MEDIA PVT LTD
DOI: 10.4103/0974-7796.127019

关键词

Clinical predictors; nocturia; obstructive sleep apnea

资金

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [T32 DC000028] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DEAFNESS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION DISORDERS [T32DC000028] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate clinical predictors of nocturia in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Materials and Methods: In retrospective manner, a total of 200 patients with OSA were randomly included. Group I contained 100 patients with OSA and no nocturia, and Group II included 100 patients with OSA and nocturia. Bivariate logistic analyses were used to identify variables most likely to contribute to nocturia. Multivariate logistic regression of age, waist circumference, STOP score (Snore, Tired, Obstruction and Pressure), and Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) was performed to evaluate predictors of nocturia. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. Results: Median nocturia episodes were 2.2 in Group II. Patients were younger in Group I, with a mean age of 45 vs 50 years (P = 0.008). Mean BMI of 30 was similar in both groups, but there were more overweight patients in Group II (28% vs 18%). AHI approached significance between groups-18 vs 23 in group I and II, respectively (P = 0.071). In multivariate analysis, age over 70 years and moderate AHI were statistically significant predictors of nocturia (coefficients 0.6 and -0.2 with P = 0.003 and 0.03, respectively). Conclusions: This study identifies age and AHI score as predictors of nocturia in patients with OSA. This may indicate the usefulness of incorporating nocturia in the screening of patients with OSA. Future studies are needed to further evaluate mechanism of action, clinical significance, and effect of treatment for nocturia in patients with OSA.

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

3.8
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