Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Rationale Randomized trials have shown inconsistent cardiovascular benefits from obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) therapy. Intermittent hypoxemia can increase both sympathetic nerve activity and loop gain (“ventilatory instability”), which may thus herald cardiovascular treatment benefit. Objectives To test the hypothesis that loop gain predicts changes in 24-hour mean blood pressure (MBP) in response to OSA therapy and compare its predictive value against that of other novel biomarkers. Methods The HeartBEAT (Heart Biomarker Evaluation in Apnea Treatment) trial assessed the effect of 12 weeks of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus oxygen versus control on 24-hour MBP. We measured loop gain and hypoxic burden from sleep tests and identified subjects with a sleepy phenotype using cluster analysis. Associations between biomarkers and 24-h MBP were assessed in the CPAP/oxygen arms using linear regression models adjusting for various covariates. Secondary outcomes and predictors were analyzed similarly. Results We included 93 and 94 participants in the CPAP and oxygen arms, respectively. Overall, changes in 24-hour MBP were small, but interindividual variability was substantial (mean standard deviation, −2 8 and 1 8 mm Hg in the CPAP and oxygen arms, respectively). Higher loop gain was significantly associated with greater reductions in 24-hour MBP independent of covariates in the CPAP arm (−1.5 to −1.9 mm Hg per 1-standard-deviation increase in loop gain; P ⩽ 0.03) but not in the oxygen arm. Other biomarkers were not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study suggesting that loop gain predicts blood pressure response to CPAP therapy. Eventually, loop gain estimates may facilitate patient selection for research and clinical practice. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01086800).
Schmickl et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: