This retrospective study examines age-related differences in physiological responses to CPAP pressure adjustments, suggesting implications for treatment.
Objective: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy is recognized as first-line treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), but tolerance to pressure adjustments may differ with age. In this study, we examined age-related differences in physiological and neurophysiological responses following CPAP pressure adjustment. Methods: In this retrospective study, we analyzed baseline polysomnography (PSG) and CPAP titration data from 40 individuals, including 20 younger (< 65 years) and 20 older adults (≥ 65 years) matched at the group level. Time-specific analyses were conducted using 10-min windows following pressure adjustments. Group comparisons across predefined pressure categories of CPAP (4– 5, 6– 7, and ≥ 8 cmH 2 O) and age groups were performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal–Wallis tests, as appropriate, with post-hoc analyses. Single and multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to assess associations between CPAP pressure categories and physiological responses, using the 4– 5 cmH 2 O group as the reference and adjusting for prior pressure change history and sleep-stage distribution. Results: Both age groups demonstrated improvements in sleep architecture and sleep disorder indices during CPAP titration. Among older individuals, analyses of 10-min periods following pressure adjustments showed a higher arousal frequency, increased elevated standard deviation (SD) of normal-to-normal (NN) intervals (SDNN) and low-frequency (LF)/high-frequency (HF) ratios, and reduced slow-wave peak-to-peak amplitudes and slopes compared to younger counterparts. Regression analyses further indicated associations between pressure categories, HRV features, and slow-wave characteristics in the elderly group. Conclusion: These findings highlight potential age-related differences in short-term responses to pressure adjustments for CPAP. Future prospective studies are needed to validate and enhance the generalizability and robustness of these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: