Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

CPAP vs Mandibular Advancement Devices and Blood Pressure in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea

CPAP vs Mandibular Advancement Devices and Blood Pressure in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea ImportanceObstructive sleep apnea is associated with higher levels of blood pressure (BP), which can lead to increased cardiovascular risk. ObjectiveTo compare the association of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), mandibular advancement devices (MADs), and inactive control groups (placebo or no treatment) with changes in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Data SourcesThe databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to the end of August 2015 and study bibliographies were reviewed. Study SelectionRandomized clinical trials comparing the effect of CPAP or MADs (vs each other or an inactive control) on BP in patients with obstructive sleep apnea were selected by consensus. Of 872 studies initially identified, 51 were selected for analysis. Data Extraction and SynthesisData were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer. A network meta-analysis using multivariate random-effects meta-regression was used to estimate pooled differences between each intervention. Meta-regression was used to assess the association between trial characteristics and the reported effects of CPAP vs inactive control. Main Outcomes and MeasuresAbsolute change in SBP and DBP from baseline to follow-up. ResultsOf the 51 studies included in the analysis (4888 patients), 44 compared CPAP with an inactive control, 3 compared MADs with an inactive control, 1 compared CPAP with an MAD, and 3 compared CPAP, MADs, and an inactive control. Compared with an inactive control, CPAP was associated with a reduction in SBP of 2.5 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.5 to 3.5 mm Hg; P < .001) and in DBP of 2.0 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.7 mm Hg; P < .001). A 1-hour-per-night increase in mean CPAP use was associated with an additional reduction in SBP of 1.5 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.8 to 2.3 mm Hg; P < .001) and an additional reduction in DBP of 0.9 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.4 mm Hg; P = .001). Compared with an inactive control, MADs were associated with a reduction in SBP of 2.1 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.8 to 3.4 mm Hg; P = .002) and in DBP of 1.9 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.5 to 3.2 mm Hg; P = .008). There was no significant difference between CPAP and MADs in their association with change in SBP (−0.5 mm Hg [95% CI, −2.0 to 1.0 mm Hg]; P = .55) or in DBP (−0.2 mm Hg [95% CI, −1.6 to 1.3 mm Hg]; P = .82). Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients with obstructive sleep apnea, both CPAP and MADs were associated with reductions in BP. Network meta-analysis did not identify a statistically significant difference between the BP outcomes associated with these therapies. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA American Medical Association

CPAP vs Mandibular Advancement Devices and Blood Pressure in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Download PDF
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/cpap-vs-mandibular-advancement-devices-and-blood-pressure-in-patients-YL00K9iTlB

References (88)

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright 2015 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
0098-7484
eISSN
1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.2015.16303
pmid
26624827
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ImportanceObstructive sleep apnea is associated with higher levels of blood pressure (BP), which can lead to increased cardiovascular risk. ObjectiveTo compare the association of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), mandibular advancement devices (MADs), and inactive control groups (placebo or no treatment) with changes in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Data SourcesThe databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to the end of August 2015 and study bibliographies were reviewed. Study SelectionRandomized clinical trials comparing the effect of CPAP or MADs (vs each other or an inactive control) on BP in patients with obstructive sleep apnea were selected by consensus. Of 872 studies initially identified, 51 were selected for analysis. Data Extraction and SynthesisData were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer. A network meta-analysis using multivariate random-effects meta-regression was used to estimate pooled differences between each intervention. Meta-regression was used to assess the association between trial characteristics and the reported effects of CPAP vs inactive control. Main Outcomes and MeasuresAbsolute change in SBP and DBP from baseline to follow-up. ResultsOf the 51 studies included in the analysis (4888 patients), 44 compared CPAP with an inactive control, 3 compared MADs with an inactive control, 1 compared CPAP with an MAD, and 3 compared CPAP, MADs, and an inactive control. Compared with an inactive control, CPAP was associated with a reduction in SBP of 2.5 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.5 to 3.5 mm Hg; P < .001) and in DBP of 2.0 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.7 mm Hg; P < .001). A 1-hour-per-night increase in mean CPAP use was associated with an additional reduction in SBP of 1.5 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.8 to 2.3 mm Hg; P < .001) and an additional reduction in DBP of 0.9 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.4 mm Hg; P = .001). Compared with an inactive control, MADs were associated with a reduction in SBP of 2.1 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.8 to 3.4 mm Hg; P = .002) and in DBP of 1.9 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.5 to 3.2 mm Hg; P = .008). There was no significant difference between CPAP and MADs in their association with change in SBP (−0.5 mm Hg [95% CI, −2.0 to 1.0 mm Hg]; P = .55) or in DBP (−0.2 mm Hg [95% CI, −1.6 to 1.3 mm Hg]; P = .82). Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients with obstructive sleep apnea, both CPAP and MADs were associated with reductions in BP. Network meta-analysis did not identify a statistically significant difference between the BP outcomes associated with these therapies.

Journal

JAMA – American Medical Association

Published: Dec 1, 2015

There are no references for this article.