Pépin Jean-Louis, Schwartz Alan R, Khayat Rami, Germany Robin, McKane Scott, Warde Matthieu, Ngo Van, Baillieul Sebastien, Bailly Sebastien, Tamisier Renaud
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, INSERM, CHU Grenoble Alpes, HP2 Laboratory, Grenoble, France; Pole Thorax et Vaisseaux, Laboratoire EFCR (Explorations Fonctionnelles Cardiovasculaire et Respiratoire), CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, USA.
Sleep Med. 2024 Dec;124:426-433. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2024.09.040. Epub 2024 Oct 3.
When navigating the landscape of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), central sleep apnea (CSA) and intersection of the two diseases (co-existing CSA-OSA), there are significant knowledge gaps. Data are scarce regarding the respective prevalence and differences in clinical presentation of the three conditions. One major issue for characterization of the prevalence of the different sleep apnea entities is the scoring of central versus obstructive hypopneas which is not included in the routine practice of many sleep laboratories.
We prospectively assessed multidomain symptoms and collected data on comorbidities, medications and treatment indications in a large monocentric real-life dataset (n > 2400) of patients referred for suspicion of sleep apnea. We have systematically distinguished central versus obstructive hypopneas to define OSA, CSA and co-existing CSA-OSA.
When CSA was defined by the proportion of central apneas (and hypopneas were considered obstructive by default), the prevalence of CSA was 4.59 % (co-existing CSA-OSA: 11.03 %, and OSA: 84.37 %). When the distinction between obstructive and central hypopneas was used to classify the sleep disordered breathing, the prevalence of CSA was fourfold higher at 19.69 % (co-existing: 19.16 %, OSA: 61.16 %). The burden of cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities was the highest in the CSA and co-existing sleep apnea subgroups. The three sleep apnea groups exhibited different constellations of symptoms but most of the patients with CSA, co-existing and OSA were symptomatic after comprehensive evaluation. The CSA group exhibited the most severe disturbances in sleep architecture on polysomnography. Therapeutic indications differed depending on the subtype of respiratory events.
Our findings imply that not differentiating between central and obstructive hypopneas will underestimate the severity of central sleep disordered breathing abnormalities that mislead therapeutic decisions and might limit improvements in quality of life and sleepiness that are expected in appropriately treated patients with CSA.
在探讨阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)、中枢性睡眠呼吸暂停(CSA)以及这两种疾病的交叉情况(并存的CSA-OSA)时,存在显著的知识空白。关于这三种情况各自的患病率以及临床表现差异的数据十分匮乏。表征不同睡眠呼吸暂停类型患病率的一个主要问题是中枢性与阻塞性低通气的评分,这在许多睡眠实验室的常规操作中并未涵盖。
我们前瞻性地评估了多领域症状,并在一个大型单中心真实世界数据集(n>2400)中收集了有关合并症、药物治疗和治疗指征的数据,该数据集来自因疑似睡眠呼吸暂停而转诊的患者。我们系统地区分了中枢性与阻塞性低通气,以定义OSA、CSA和并存的CSA-OSA。
当CSA由中枢性呼吸暂停的比例定义(默认低通气为阻塞性)时,CSA的患病率为4.59%(并存的CSA-OSA:11.03%,OSA:84.37%)。当使用阻塞性与中枢性低通气的区分来对睡眠呼吸障碍进行分类时,CSA的患病率高出四倍,为19.69%(并存:19.16%,OSA:61.16%)。心血管和代谢合并症的负担在CSA和并存睡眠呼吸暂停亚组中最高。这三个睡眠呼吸暂停组表现出不同的症状组合,但大多数CSA、并存和OSA患者在综合评估后都有症状。CSA组在多导睡眠图上表现出睡眠结构最严重的紊乱。治疗指征因呼吸事件的亚型而异。
我们的研究结果表明,不区分中枢性和阻塞性低通气会低估中枢性睡眠呼吸障碍异常的严重程度,这会误导治疗决策,并可能限制经适当治疗的CSA患者预期的生活质量改善和嗜睡症状缓解。