Bhavneesh K Sharma1, Jessie P Bakker2, David G McSharry3, Akshay S Desai4, Shahrokh Javaheri5, Atul Malhotra3. 1. Steward Health Care System, Boston, MA. 2. Sleep Disorders Research Program, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: jpbakker@partners.org. 3. Sleep Disorders Research Program, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 4. Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 5. Sleepcare Diagnostics, Cincinnati, OH.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adaptive servoventilation (ASV) has demonstrated efficacy in treating sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) in patients with heart failure (HF), but large randomized trials are lacking. We, therefore, sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing data. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed database was undertaken in March 2012. Publications were independently assessed by two investigators to identify studies of ≥ 1-week duration that compared ASV to a control condition (ie, subtherapeutic ASV, continuous or bilevel pressure ventilation, oxygen therapy, or no treatment) in adult patients with SDB and HF. Mean, variability,and sample size data were extracted independently for the following outcomes: apneahypopnea index (AHI), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), quality of life (SF-36 Health Survey; Medical Outcomes Trust), 6-min walk distance, peak oxygen consumption ( VO 2 ) % predicted, and ventilatory equivalent ratio for CO 2 ( VE / Vco 2 ) slope measured during exercise. Random effects meta-analysis models were applied. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were identified (N = 538). Comparing ASV to control conditions, the weighted mean difference in AHI ( -14.64 events/h; 95% CI, -21.03 to - 8.25) and LVEF (0.40;95% CI, 0.08-0.71) both significantly favored ASV. ASV also improved the 6-min walk distance,but not peak O 2 % predicted, VE / VCO 2 slope, or quality of life, compared with control conditions. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF and SDB, ASV was more effective than control conditions in reducing the AHI and improving cardiac function and exercise capacity. These data provide a compelling rationale for large-scale randomized controlled trials to assess the clinical impact of ASV on hard outcomes in these patients.
BACKGROUND: Adaptive servoventilation (ASV) has demonstrated efficacy in treating sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) in patients with heart failure (HF), but large randomized trials are lacking. We, therefore, sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing data. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed database was undertaken in March 2012. Publications were independently assessed by two investigators to identify studies of ≥ 1-week duration that compared ASV to a control condition (ie, subtherapeutic ASV, continuous or bilevel pressure ventilation, oxygen therapy, or no treatment) in adult patients with SDB and HF. Mean, variability,and sample size data were extracted independently for the following outcomes: apneahypopnea index (AHI), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), quality of life (SF-36 Health Survey; Medical Outcomes Trust), 6-min walk distance, peak oxygen consumption ( VO 2 ) % predicted, and ventilatory equivalent ratio for CO 2 ( VE / Vco 2 ) slope measured during exercise. Random effects meta-analysis models were applied. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were identified (N = 538). Comparing ASV to control conditions, the weighted mean difference in AHI ( -14.64 events/h; 95% CI, -21.03 to - 8.25) and LVEF (0.40;95% CI, 0.08-0.71) both significantly favored ASV. ASV also improved the 6-min walk distance,but not peak O 2 % predicted, VE / VCO 2 slope, or quality of life, compared with control conditions. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF and SDB, ASV was more effective than control conditions in reducing the AHI and improving cardiac function and exercise capacity. These data provide a compelling rationale for large-scale randomized controlled trials to assess the clinical impact of ASV on hard outcomes in these patients.
Authors: Chris B Johnson; Rob S Beanlands; Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Haissam Haddad; Judith Leech; Rob de Kemp; Ian G Burwash Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Olaf Oldenburg; Anke Schmidt; Barbara Lamp; Thomas Bitter; Bogdan G Muntean; Christoph Langer; Dieter Horstkotte Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Michael Arzt; John S Floras; Alexander G Logan; R John Kimoff; Frederic Series; Debra Morrison; Kathleen Ferguson; Israel Belenkie; Michael Pfeifer; John Fleetham; Patrick Hanly; Mark Smilovitch; Clodagh Ryan; George Tomlinson; T Douglas Bradley Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-06-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Carlos J Egea; Felipe Aizpuru; Jose A Pinto; Jose M Ayuela; Eugeni Ballester; Carlos Zamarrón; Agustín Sojo; Josep M Montserrat; Ferran Barbe; Angel Ma Alonso-Gomez; Ramon Rubio; Jose L Lobo; Joaquin Duran-Cantolla; Vanessa Zorrilla; Renny Nuñez; Julia Cortés; Antonio Jiménez; Jose Cifrián; Mónica Ortega; Rosario Carpizo; Antonio Sánchez; Joaquin Terán; Luis Iglesias; Carmen Fernández; Mari Luz Alonso; Jose Cordero; Eulalia Roig; Felix Pérez; Africa Muxi; Francisco Gude; Antonio Amaro; Uxio Calvo; Juan F Masa; Isabel Utrabo; Yolanda Porras; Isabel Lanchas; Esther Sánchez Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2007-09-27 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Dominik Linz; Holger Woehrle; Thomas Bitter; Henrik Fox; Martin R Cowie; Michael Böhm; Olaf Oldenburg Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Robert J Mentz; Jacob P Kelly; Thomas G von Lueder; Adriaan A Voors; Carolyn S P Lam; Martin R Cowie; Keld Kjeldsen; Ewa A Jankowska; Dan Atar; Javed Butler; Mona Fiuzat; Faiez Zannad; Bertram Pitt; Christopher M O'Connor Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-11-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Katharina Heider; Michael Arzt; Christoph Lerzer; Leonie Kolb; Michael Pfeifer; Lars S Maier; Florian Gfüllner; Maximilian Valentin Malfertheiner Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 5.460