Users Online: 698
Home Print this page Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Browse articles Submit article Ahead of Print Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 13

Comparative Evaluation of Therapeutic Approaches to Central Sleep Apnea


1 General Physician, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Department of Internal Medicine, Imam-Hossein General Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Anesthesiology, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran
4 Department of Internal Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
5 Department of Internal Medicine, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ahmad Raeisi
Department of Internal Medicine, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/abr.abr_173_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: To date, there is no standard approach to manage and to improve central sleep apnea (CSA). The most applicable therapeutic approaches are positive airway pressure therapy (PAP), bi-level PAP therapy (BIPAP), supplemental O2 and servo ventilation, or a combination of two approaches. Given the high prevalence of heart disease (HF) and/or concomitants of other diseases and opioid use worldwide; it seemingly requires evaluation of patients' conditions in response to each abovementioned approach to select the most effective approach. Materials and Methods: This longitudinal cross-sectional study included 64 CSA patients who had undergone continuous PAP (CPAP), CPAP + O2, and BiPAP. Hence, if a patient was nonresponsive to a treatment, the next was applied. If the patient was nonresponsive to all approaches, oxygen alone was administered. The collected data were analyzed with SPSS. Results: The study of 64 CSA patients showed that frequencies of response to CPAP, CPAP + O2, and BiPAP were 42.2%, 20.3%, and 28.1%, respectively. While 9.4% of patients with histories of congestive heart failure (CHF) and ischemic heart disease (IHD) who were older than others and with the highest apnea-hypopnea index, were nonresponsive to all approaches. CPAP therapy showed more appropriate results in patients with CHF and IHD. Furthermore, patients with the history of opioid use showed the most positive results in response to CPAP and BIPAP. Conclusion: The results suggest that CPAP and BIPAP are, respectively, the most effective therapeutic approaches to CSA in patients with the histories of HF and opioid use, but CPAP + O2 could be reliable in some conditions as well. Therefore, it may require further studies to be clarified.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed77    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded21    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal