| Title |
Sleep Apnea in Heart Failure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11936-018-0624-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
MuChun Tsai, Rami Khayat |
| Abstract |
In this review, we discuss the current treatment options for sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) in patients with heart failure (HF). We address the role of positive airway pressure (PAP) devices and other emerging therapies. The review includes discussion of recent trials that reported negative consequences for the PAP devices in patients with heart failure. Optimal guideline-directed medical therapies of HF and PAP devices have been the mainstay treatments for HF patients with SDB. Recently, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the effect of PAP on clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease and heart failure and found no benefit in decreasing fatal and non-fatal CV events. The Sleep Apnea Cardiovascular Endpoints (SAVE) trial evaluated continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) ventilation in patients with CV disease and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and did not observe any improvement in CV effect. In patients with HF and central sleep apnea (CSA), adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) was hypothesized to help HF outcomes, but the Adaptive Servo-Ventilation for Central Sleep Apnea in Systolic Heart Failure (SERVE-HF) trial did not show any mortality benefit. Instead, the trial suggested an increase in all-cause and CV mortality in the treatment arm. currently, studies have not shown the use of PAP therapy to improve any risks of CV outcomes or death in HF patients with sleep apnea, but some associations with improvements in symptoms from OSA have been observed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Librarian | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,850,342
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine
#271
of 416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,754
of 332,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine
#14
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 416 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.