Dataset Information

In-hospital treatment of obstructive sleep apnea during decompensation of heart failure.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in outpatients with systolic heart failure improves cardiac function. We evaluated the impact of immediate inpatient diagnosis and treatment of OSA in hospitalized patients with acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF) on in-hospital cardiac outcomes.

Methods

A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted in an academic heart hospital. Patients with ADHF underwent an attended in-hospital sleep study within 2 days of hospital admission to establish the diagnosis of sleep-disordered breathing. The participants were 46 consecutive patients with ADHF who had OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI], >or= 15 events per hour). Participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention arm (n = 23), with in-hospital treatment of OSA using auto-adjusting positive airway pressure along with standard treatment of ADHF, or to the control arm (n = 23), in which they received only standard treatment for ADHF. The primary outcome was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 3 nights postrandomization.

Results

The change in LVEF from baseline to 3 days postrandomization in the intervention arm was significantly superior to that of the control group. The difference in LVEF improvement was 4.6% (p = 0.03). LVEF increased in the intervention group by 4.5% (SE, 1.7%). The LVEF change in the control arm was--0.3% (SE, 1.5%). The difference in LVEF improvement between the two groups persisted after adjustment for baseline LVEF, type of cardiomyopathy, BMI, AHI, and sex.

Conclusions

An approach of early identification and in-hospital treatment of OSA in patients with ADHF is feasible and resulted in improvement in systolic function. The impact of this approach on out-of-hospital outcomes requires further investigation.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00701038.

SUBMITTER: Khayat RN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2771043 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRural communities represent a vulnerable population that would significantly benefit from hospital-based OSA screening given these areas tend to have significant health-care disparities and poor health outcomes. Although inpatient screening has been studied at urban hospitals, no study to date has assessed this approach in rural populations.MethodsThis study utilized the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) to generate a list of potential candidates by employing inclusion/exclusion criteria as screening. Subjects identified were then approached and offered information regarding the study. Screening for OSA entailed a tiered approach utilizing the sleep apnea clinical score (SAC) and portable sleep testing. Individuals identified as high risk (SAC ≥ 15) for OSA underwent evaluation with a portable sleep testing system while hospitalized. All participants with an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) ≥5 events/h confirmed by a sleep medicine physician were considered screen positive for OSA. If approved/available, subjects screening positive for OSA were provided with an auto-titrating continuous positive airway pressure (PAP). Patient characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Categorical data were described using contingency tables, including counts and percentages. Continuously scaled measures were summarized by median with range. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT03056443.ResultsNine hundred and fifty-eight potential subjects were identified. The three most common reasons for exclusion included previous OSA diagnosis or exposure to PAP therapy (n = 357), advanced illness (n = 380), and declined participation by the individual (n = 68). The remaining 31 subjects underwent further evaluation for obstructive sleep apnea. Twenty-three subjects had a high sleep apnea clinic score. Per our study protocol, 13 subjects who screened positive for OSA were initiated on APAP therapy. Conclusion: Our study provides important insight into the burden of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) and unique challenges of hospital-based OSA screening/treatment in a rural setting. Our study identified barriers to successful screening in a rural population that may be well addressed by adapting previous research in hospital sleep medicine.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) is common in adults. People with OSAS have a higher risk of experiencing traffic accidents and occupational injuries (OIs). We aimed to clarify the diagnostic performance of a three-channel screening device (ApneaLinkTM) compared with the gold standard of full-night attended polysomnography (PSG) among hospital outpatients not referred for sleep-related symptoms. Furthermore, we aimed to determine whether manual revision of the ApneaLinkTM autoscore enhanced diagnostic performance. METHODS:We investigated 68 patients with OI and 44 without OI recruited from the University Hospital Basel emergency room, using a cross-sectional study design. Participating patients spent one night at home with ApneaLinkTM and within 2 weeks slept for one night at the sleep laboratory. We reanalyzed all ApneaLinkTM data after manual revision. RESULTS:We identified significant correlations between the ApneaLinkTM apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) autoscore and the AHI derived by PSG (r = 0.525; p <0.001) and between the ApneaLinkTM oxygen desaturation index (ODI) autoscore and that derived by PSG (r = 0.722; p <0.001). The ApneaLinkTM autoscore showed a sensitivity and specificity of 82% when comparing AHI ≥5 with the cutoff for AHI and/or ODI ≥15 from PSG. In Bland Altman plots the mean difference between ApneaLinkTM AHI autoscore and PSG was 2.75 with SD ± 8.80 (β = 0.034), and between ApneaLinkTM AHI revised score and PSG -1.50 with SD ± 9.28 (β = 0.060). CONCLUSIONS:The ApneaLinkTM autoscore demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity compared with the gold standard (full-night attended PSG). However, Bland Altman plots revealed substantial fluctuations between PSG and ApneaLinkTM AHI autoscore respectively manually revised score. This spread for the AHI from a clinical perspective is large, and therefore the results have to be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, our findings suggest that there is no clinical benefit in manually revising the ApneaLinkTM autoscore.