Treatment of Cheyne–Stokes respiration with adaptive servoventilation—analysis of patients with regard to therapy restriction

PURPOSE: The SERVE-HF study revealed no benefit of adaptive servoventilation (ASV) versus guideline-based medical treatment in patients with symptomatic heart failure, an ejection fraction (EF) ≤45% and a predominance of central events (apnoea-hypopnea Index AHI > 15/h). Because both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were higher in the ASV group, an EF ≤ 45% in combination with AHI 15/h, central apnoea-hyponoea index CAHI/AHI > 50% and central apnoea index CAI > 10/h were subsequently listed as contraindications for ASV. The intention of our study was to analyse the clinical relevance of this limitation. METHODS: Data were analysed retrospectively for patients treated with ASV who received follow-up echocardiography to identify contraindications for ASV. RESULTS: Echocardiography was conducted in 23 patients. The echocardiogram was normal in 10 cases, a left ventricular hypertrophy with normal EF was found in 8 patients, there was an EF 45-50% in 2 cases and a valvular aortic stenosis (grade II) with normal EF was found in 1 case. EF <45% was present in just 2 cases, and only 1 of these patients also had more than 50% central events in the diagnostic night. CONCLUSION: The population typically treated with ASV is entirely different from the study population in SERVE-HF, as nearly half of the patients treated with ASV showed a normal echocardiogram. Thus, the modified indication for ASV has little impact on the majority of treated patients. The current pathomechanistic hypothesis of central apnoea must be reviewed.