Esther I Schwarz1, Frank Scherff2, Sarah R Haile3, Joerg Steier4, Malcolm Kohler1,5. 1. Department of Pulmonology and Sleep Disorders Centre, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Department of Cardiology, University Heart Centre, University Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, United Kingdom. 5. Centre for Interdisciplinary Sleep Research, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Patients who have experienced heart failure with central sleep apnea/Cheyne-Stokes respiration (CSA/CSR) have an impaired prognosis. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and adaptive servoventilation (ASV) as well as nocturnal oxygen (O₂) are proposed treatment modalities of CSA/CSR. The goal of the study is to assess whether and how different treatments of CSA/CSR affect cardiac function. METHODS: Databases were searched up to December 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of any combination of CPAP, ASV, O₂ or an inactive control on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure and CSA/CSR. A systematic review and network meta-analysis using multivariate random-effects meta-regression were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-four RCTs (1,289 patients) were included in the systematic review and data of 16 RCTs (951 patients; apnea-hypopnea-index 38 ± 3/h, LVEF 29 ± 3%) could be pooled in a network meta-analysis. Compared to an inactive control, both CPAP and ASV significantly improved LVEF by 4.4% (95% confidence interval 0.3-8.5%, P = 0.036) and 3.8% (95% confidence interval 0.6-7.0%, P = 0.025), respectively, whereas O₂ had no effect on LVEF (P = 0.35). There was no difference in treatment effects on LVEF between CPAP and ASV (P = 0.76). The treatment effect of positive pressure ventilation was larger when baseline LVEF was lower in systolic heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: CPAP and ASV are effective in improving LVEF in patients with heart failure and CSA/CSR to a clinically relevant amount, whereas nocturnal O₂ is not. There is no difference between CPAP and ASV in the comparative beneficial effect on cardiac function.
STUDY OBJECTIVES:Patients who have experienced heart failure with central sleep apnea/Cheyne-Stokes respiration (CSA/CSR) have an impaired prognosis. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and adaptive servoventilation (ASV) as well as nocturnal oxygen (O₂) are proposed treatment modalities of CSA/CSR. The goal of the study is to assess whether and how different treatments of CSA/CSR affect cardiac function. METHODS: Databases were searched up to December 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of any combination of CPAP, ASV, O₂ or an inactive control on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure and CSA/CSR. A systematic review and network meta-analysis using multivariate random-effects meta-regression were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-four RCTs (1,289 patients) were included in the systematic review and data of 16 RCTs (951 patients; apnea-hypopnea-index 38 ± 3/h, LVEF 29 ± 3%) could be pooled in a network meta-analysis. Compared to an inactive control, both CPAP and ASV significantly improved LVEF by 4.4% (95% confidence interval 0.3-8.5%, P = 0.036) and 3.8% (95% confidence interval 0.6-7.0%, P = 0.025), respectively, whereas O₂ had no effect on LVEF (P = 0.35). There was no difference in treatment effects on LVEF between CPAP and ASV (P = 0.76). The treatment effect of positive pressure ventilation was larger when baseline LVEF was lower in systolic heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: CPAP and ASV are effective in improving LVEF in patients with heart failure and CSA/CSR to a clinically relevant amount, whereas nocturnal O₂ is not. There is no difference between CPAP and ASV in the comparative beneficial effect on cardiac function.
Authors: Winfried Randerath; Johan Verbraecken; Stefan Andreas; Michael Arzt; Konrad E Bloch; Thomas Brack; Bertien Buyse; Wilfried De Backer; Danny Joel Eckert; Ludger Grote; Lars Hagmeyer; Jan Hedner; Poul Jennum; Maria Teresa La Rovere; Carla Miltz; Walter T McNicholas; Josep Montserrat; Matthew Naughton; Jean-Louis Pepin; Dirk Pevernagie; Bernd Sanner; Dries Testelmans; Thomy Tonia; Bart Vrijsen; Peter Wijkstra; Patrick Levy Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Diana R Elbourne; Douglas G Altman; Julian P T Higgins; Francois Curtin; Helen V Worthington; Andy Vail Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Jonathan P Piccini; Sean D Pokorney; Kevin J Anstrom; Olaf Oldenburg; Naresh M Punjabi; Mona Fiuzat; Gudaye Tasissa; David J Whellan; JoAnn Lindenfeld; Adam Benjafield; Holger Woehrle; Amy Blase; Christopher M O'Connor Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Elisa Perger; Toru Inami; Owen D Lyons; Hisham Alshaer; Stephanie Smith; John S Floras; Alexander G Logan; Michael Arzt; Joaquin Duran Cantolla; Diego Delgado; Michael Fitzpatrick; John Fleetham; Takatoshi Kasai; R John Kimoff; Richard S T Leung; Geraldo Lorenzi Filho; Pierre Mayer; Lisa Mielniczuk; Debra L Morrison; Gianfranco Parati; Sairam Parthasarathy; Stefania Redolfi; Clodagh M Ryan; Frederic Series; George A Tomlinson; Anna Woo; T Douglas Bradley Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Thomas Brack; Irene Thüer; Christian F Clarenbach; Oliver Senn; Georg Noll; Erich W Russi; Konrad E Bloch Journal: Chest Date: 2007-07-23 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Brian Hutton; Georgia Salanti; Deborah M Caldwell; Anna Chaimani; Christopher H Schmid; Chris Cameron; John P A Ioannidis; Sharon Straus; Kristian Thorlund; Jeroen P Jansen; Cynthia Mulrow; Ferrán Catalá-López; Peter C Gøtzsche; Kay Dickersin; Isabelle Boutron; Douglas G Altman; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 25.391