Key result
Continuous positive airway pressure preferentially improved cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk obstructive sleep apnoea compared to low-risk OSA (interaction HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.50-0.95; P=0.024).
Why the study?
Does continuous positive airway pressure reduce major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in patients with cardiovascular disease and high-risk obstructive sleep apnoea?
Meta-Analysis (n=3,549)
Yes
Does continuous positive airway pressure reduce major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in patients with cardiovascular disease and high-risk obstructive sleep apnoea?
CPAP therapy preferentially improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with high-risk obstructive sleep apnoea, suggesting a targeted approach is needed to avoid potential harm in low-risk patients.
Randomized trials of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in patients with cardiovascular disease have not detected reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). This study tested whether the cardiovascular benefit of CPAP occurs preferentially in high-risk OSA, characterized by greater OSA-related heart rate acceleration or hypoxaemia. In a post hoc analysis of pooled Randomized Intervention with Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Coronary Artery Disease and Obstructive Sleep Apnoea, Impact of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure on Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Nonsleepy Obstructive Sleep Apnoea, and Sleep Apnoea Cardiovascular Endpoints Study randomized trials; outcomes were stratified by high-risk OSA status, defined by heart rate response following OSA respiratory events >9.4 b.p.m. (third tertile) or oxygen desaturation area under baseline (hypoxic burden) > 87.1% min/h (third tertile). Cox mixed models quantified the CPAP treatment effect on MACCE (including cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke) within high-risk OSA and the difference vs low-risk status (primary test). Secondary analyses examined participants without excessive sleepiness (Epworth <11 points) or without increased blood pressure (systolic/diastolic <140/90 mmHg). In 3549 participants, 16.6% and 16.3% reached the MACCE endpoint with CPAP (n = 1778) and usual care (n = 1771), respectively. The CPAP treatment effect was greater in participants with vs without high-risk OSA [interaction hazard ratio (iHR) .69, 95% confidence interval (CI) .50-.95, Pinteraction = .024; Nhigh-risk = 1832]. The differential effect was stronger in those without excessive sleepiness (iHR .59, 95% CI .41-.84; Nhigh-risk = 1509), or without increased blood pressure (iHR .54, 95% CI .36-.81; Nhigh-risk = 1244). Continuous positive airway pressure benefits in high-risk OSA were observed alongside harm in low-risk OSA. Continuous positive airway pressure preferentially improves cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk OSA, while harm in low-risk OSA may counteract this effect. These findings provide a pathway to identify patients likely to benefit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Azarbarzin et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) and cardiovascular disease (n=3,549). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs. Usual care was evaluated on MACCE (including cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke) (iHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.95, p=0.024). Continuous positive airway pressure preferentially improved cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk obstructive sleep apnoea compared to low-risk OSA (interaction HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.50-0.95; P=0.024).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: