4.6 Review

Sleep apnoea and endothelial dysfunction: An individual patient data meta-analysis

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE REVIEWS
卷 52, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2020.101309

关键词

Obstructive sleep apnoea; Endothelial function; Reactive hyperaemia index

资金

  1. French National Research Agency [ANR-12-TECS-0010, ANR-15-IDEX-02]
  2. e-health and integrated care Chair of excellence from the Grenoble Alpes University Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the association between obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) severity and the reactive hyperaemia index (RHI) measured by peripheral arterial tonometry (PAT), a validated measurement of endothelial function, and a strong predictor of late cardiovascular (CV) events. Patients from 12 studies underwent PAT and overnight polysomnography or respiratory polygraphy for suspected OSA. Endothelial dysfunction was defined by a log-transformed RHI<0.51. Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate this relationship in specific populations. Among 730 patients without overt CV disease, 387 (53.0%) had severe OSA (apnoea-hypopnea index >= 30) and 164 (22.5%) exhibited endothelial dysfunction. After adjustment for age, gender, diastolic blood pressure, obesity, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, endothelial dysfunction was associated with severe OSA (odds ratio, OR [95% confidence interval]: 2.27 [1.12-4.60]; p = 0.02), and nocturnal hypoxemia defined by >20 min with oxygen saturation <90% (OR: 1.83 [1.22-2.92]; p = 0.004) or mean oxygen saturation <92% (OR: 1.52 [1.17-1.96]; p = 0.002). On subgroup analyses, the association between severe OSA and endothelial dysfunction was not significant in patients with hypertension, obesity and/or diabetes. Among adults without overt CV disease, severe OSA is independently associated with an increased risk of endothelial dysfunction that may predispose to late CV events. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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