Introduction
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a highly prevalent cause of morbidity and mortality,
both in the United States and worldwide. In parallel with the development of new and
improved therapies for established CVD such as coronary artery disease or heart failure
(HF), there has been an increased focus on modification of cardiovascular risk factors
for both primary and secondary prevention, reflecting an evolving understanding of
CVD as a systemic process with numerous determinants.
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has been associated with many different forms of CVD
including hypertension, stroke, HF, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation
(AF).1 Adults with OSA not only have an increased risk of developing comorbid CVD
but also have worse outcomes related to CVD. OSA is highly prevalent, estimated to
affect 34% of men and 17% of women in the general population2 and 40% to 60% of patients
with CVD.3, 4 Furthermore, the prevalence is increasing, with these figures representing
a 30% increase over the previous 2 decades,2 likely related to the obesity epidemic
as well as an aging population.
Despite the clear association between CVD and OSA, randomized trials have failed to
demonstrate that treatment of sleep apnea improves hard cardiovascular outcomes in
patients with established CVD.5 Nevertheless, this area remains controversial, as
randomized trials performed to date remain limited in number as well as design, highlighting
the need for further study.6 Furthermore, the current literature suggests that the
impact of diagnosing and treating OSA varies between specific CVD processes, implying
the need for a more sophisticated understanding and nuanced clinical approach to this
issue. In this article we review the literature pertaining to OSA in patients with
CVD. Additionally, we offer a practical clinical approach to the evaluation and management
of known or suspected OSA in patients with CVD consisting of recommendations integrated
from several separate societal practice guidelines combined with several of our own
suggestions on issues not addressed by current guidelines, based on our own clinical
experience and best available literature.
Overview of Sleep Apnea
Definition
Sleep apnea is characterized by repetitive episodes of apnea occurring during sleep.
An apnea is defined as a cessation of inspiratory airflow lasting 10 seconds or more,
while the term hypopnea refers to a reduction in inspiratory airflow (by at least
30%) lasting 10 seconds or more with an associated drop in oxygen saturation or arousal
from sleep.7 The steps required for a successful inspiratory cycle include activation
of a signal from the regulatory brainstem center, transmission of the signal via peripheral
nerves, activation of respiratory muscles to produce negative intrathoracic pressure,
and a patent airway. The mechanism for apneas or hypopneas can be either obstructive,
in which airflow cessation results despite inspiratory effort because of blockage
within the upper airways, or central, in which both airflow and inspiratory efforts
are absent. The term sleep‐disordered breathing (SDB) encompasses OSA, central (CSA),
and mixed apnea, the latter of which shows absent respiratory effort initially and
clear effort with obstruction and the end of mixed apnea.
Important risk factors for OSA include obesity, craniofacial or oropharyngeal anatomic
abnormalities, male sex, and smoking.8 During sleep, there is a reduction in tone
of the dilator muscles involved in maintaining airway patency. In particular, relaxation
of the genioglossus muscle allows the tongue to fall posteriorly within the pharynx,
facilitating obstruction in susceptible individuals.9 Anatomic factors including obesity
that result in relative narrowing of the airway lumen increase the likelihood of obstruction.
The observation that OSA also affects nonobese patients without identifiable anatomic
abnormalities indicates that nonanatomic mechanisms are important as well. Examples
of these include ventilatory control instability10 and reduced sleep arousal threshold.11
The relative contribution from these processes varies between individual patients,
with potential therapeutic implications. A better understanding of the mechanisms
underlying OSA could facilitate more personalized therapeutic strategies in the future.
CSA results from transient failure of respiratory control centers in the medulla to
trigger inspiration. The primary mechanism is thought to be abnormal regulation of
the apneic threshold, the partial pressure of CO2 below which respiration is suppressed,
although depending on the underlying cause CSA patients can be either hypercapnic,
eucapnic, or hypocapnic.9 HF is one of the leading causes of CSA, associated in particular
with Cheyne‐Stokes breathing, which is characterized by cyclic crescendo‐decrescendo
respiratory efforts and hypocapnia.12
Evaluation and Diagnosis
The evaluation for sleep apnea begins with a comprehensive sleep assessment, which
includes a thorough clinical history documenting signs or symptoms, such as excessive
daytime sleepiness, morning headaches, snoring, witnessed apnea, or difficulty concentrating,
a physical examination, and a review of the medical history for relevant comorbidities
and other risk factors13 (Table 1). Patients with suspected sleep apnea following
this assessment should undergo diagnostic testing, the criterion standard of which
is polysomnography. Treatment of OSA is generally reserved for those individuals with
an apnea–hypopnea index (AHI; the number of apneas and hypopneas observed per hour)
≥5 measured during sleep study in patients with either signs/symptoms of sleep apnea
or associated medical conditions (including hypertension, HF, coronary artery disease,
significant arrhythmias, and other forms of CVD). Alternatively, an AHI ≥15 is often
treated as OSA even in the absence of signs, symptoms, or associated medical conditions.14
Severity is also determined using the AHI, with 5 to 14 considered mild, 15 to 30
moderate, and >30 severe disease. Significant night‐to‐night variability of AHI has
been observed in studies of consecutive night polysomnography, with 7% to 25% of patients
meeting diagnostic criteria for moderate‐to‐severe OSA the second night despite a
negative result the previous evening.15 Current guidelines therefore recommend repeating
polysomnography in patients with a negative initial study when clinical suspicion
of OSA remains high.16
Table 1
Signs and Symptoms of Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Snoring
Witnessed apneas by sleep partner
Episodes of gasping or choking during sleep
Insomnia with repeated awakenings
Excessive daytime sleepiness
Nonrefreshing sleep
Morning headaches
Difficulty concentrating
Memory impairment
Irritability and/or mood changes
Nocturia
Decreased libido and/or erectile dysfunction
Home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) using a portable monitoring device is a reasonable
alternative testing strategy. Several HSAT devices exist, all of which measure heart
rate and oximetry with some also measuring nasal pressure, chest and abdominal plethysmography,
and/or peripheral arterial tonometry. Compared with polysomnography, the diagnostic
accuracy of HSAT is lower and, importantly, varies depending on the population studied
and diagnostic criteria used.17, 18, 19 Despite these caveats, HSAT represents a viable
alternative to polysomnography in select circumstances and is recommended for diagnosis
of OSA in uncomplicated patients with an increased risk of moderate‐to‐severe OSA.7
Given its limited sensitivity and the potential consequences of false‐negative results,
negative or nondiagnostic studies should be followed up with polysomnography. Furthermore,
patients at risk for central or mixed sleep apnea (significant cardiopulmonary disease,
chronic opioid use, history of stroke, or neuromuscular disorders with potential respiratory
muscle involvement) or other nonrespiratory sleep disorders requiring evaluation should
undergo polysomnography rather than HSAT,16 because the diagnostic accuracy of the
latter for central apneas has not been validated.
Because a single night of HSAT is less resource intensive than a single full night
of polysomnography, reduced cost has been cited as a potential benefit of increasing
HSAT use in diagnosing OSA. Several economic analyses comparing the cost effectiveness
of HSAT with full‐ or split‐night polysomnography in adults with suspected moderate
to severe OSA instead found full‐night polysomnography to be the preferred testing
modality.20, 21 Increased costs related to repeat testing and false‐negative HSAT
results account for these findings. A major caveat of these analyses is the potential
for error related to imprecisions of modeling a clinical diagnostic pathway and limitations
in the quality of real‐world data available to calibrate their models. Only 1 study
published to date has analyzed relative cost effectiveness of various diagnostic modalities
using measurement of real‐world resource utilization in the context of a randomized
controlled trial (RCT). Using data from the HomePAP trial, Kim et al found that in
373 patients at risk for moderate‐to‐severe OSA, a home‐based testing pathway resulted
in significantly lower costs to the payer than a laboratory‐based polysomnography
pathway ($1575 versus $1840, P=0.02).22 Therefore, use of HSAT in appropriately selected
patients with suspected OSA may have the potential to reduce costs; however, providers
must recognize that extending HSAT use to other populations, in particular low‐risk
patients, may actually increase overall costs because of more frequent follow‐up testing.
Several clinical questionnaires and prediction tools have been developed to aid in
the evaluation of OSA, such as the STOP‐BANG questionnaire, the Epworth Sleepiness
Scale, and the Berlin Questionnaire (Table 2). These clinical tools were designed
to provide a standardized assessment approach that can be performed relatively quickly
in the outpatient setting, either in sleep centers or in primary care clinics. While
offering the advantage of being quick, convenient, and inexpensive, studies evaluating
the diagnostic accuracy of such clinical tools in comparison with polysomnography
or HSAT have demonstrated inadequate sensitivity and specificity.7 Accordingly, clinical
assessment prediction tools are not currently recommended for the diagnosis of OSA
in the absence of polysomnography or HSAT. They can, however, play a useful role as
adjunctive tools in the screening process or aid in assessment of treatment efficacy
during long‐term follow‐up of patients with OSA.
Table 2
Summary of Clinical Obstructive Sleep Apnea Questionnaires
Questionnaire
Summary of Questionnaire Contents
Diagnostic Accuracy Compared With AHI (>15 events/h)16
Berlin Questionnaire
10 questions pertaining to the following 3 symptoms/signs:
Snoring
Daytime sleepiness
Hypertension
Patients classified by score as having low risk or high risk of OSA
Sensitivity: 0.77 (0.73–0.81)
Specificity: 0.44 (0.38–0.51)
STOP Questionnaire
4 questions regarding the following signs/symptoms:
Snoring
Sleepiness
Observed apneas or choking
Hypertension
Sensitivity: 0.89 (0.81–0.94)
Specificity: 0.32 (0.19–0.48)
STOP‐BANG Questionnaire
4 questions regarding signs/symptoms plus 4 clinical attributes:
Snoring
Sleepiness
Observed apneas or choking
Hypertension
Obesity (BMI >35 kg/m2)
Age (>50 y)
Neck size
Sex
Patients classified as low, intermediate, or high risk for OSA
Sensitivity: 0.90 (0.86–0.93)
Specificity: 0.36 (0.29–0.44)
Epworth Sleepiness Scale
8 questions asking patients to rate the likelihood of falling asleep in various daytime
contexts
Patients classified as having normal sleep, average sleepiness, or severe and possibly
pathologic sleepiness
Sensitivity: 0.47 (0.35–0.59)
Specificity: 0.62 (0.56–0.68)
AHI indicates apnea–hypopnea index; BMI, body mass index; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea.
Treatment
Effective management of OSA requires a comprehensive assessment of each individual
patient's phenotype as well as long‐term follow‐up and monitoring. Behavioral, medical,
dental, and surgical options exist for treatment of sleep apnea.
Positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy is a first‐line therapy for all patients diagnosed
with obstructive sleep apnea and has been shown to both reduce the AHI23 and improve
self‐reported sleepiness and quality of life.24 It is cost effective, with an estimated
incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio of $15 915 per quality‐adjusted life year gained.20
The therapeutic mechanism of PAP is pneumatic splinting of the upper airway, thereby
reducing airflow obstruction and apneic events. The 2 major PAP delivery modes are
continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and bi‐level positive airway pressure.
CPAP is the preferred first‐line modality in most patients with OSA, while bi‐level
positive airway pressure is generally reserved for patients with OSA accompanied by
hypoventilation syndromes, although it can also be used in patients with OSA alone
who fail to tolerate CPAP and in some cases of CSA. The optimal settings are ideally
determined via manual titration of PAP during full‐night polysomnography to a pressure
that eliminates upper airway obstruction and remains tolerable to the patient. Alternatively,
some patients undergo a split‐night study in which PAP titration is performed following
the diagnostic portion of polysomnography. A split‐night study requires that a conclusive
diagnosis of moderate‐to‐severe OSA be made with at least 3 hours remaining in the
test to conduct PAP titration.
Auto‐titrating CPAP (APAP) is another option that offers the advantage of performing
titration at home rather than in a sleep laboratory. In APAP, the clinician programs
a pressure range, and the level of administered PAP is automatically adjusted throughout
the night to the lowest pressure required to maintain upper airway patency using proprietary
event‐detection software. Several randomized trials comparing fixed CPAP with APAP
showed either no difference or, in some cases, a small advantage of APAP with respect
to adherence rate, reduction in AHI, and improvement in sleepiness in cohorts with
uncomplicated OSA.25, 26 Notably, patients with HF, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease or other form of significant lung disease, obesity hypoventilation syndrome,
and SDB related to neuromuscular disease were excluded from these studies, and current
guidelines recommend against use of APAP for either pressure titration or therapy
in these patients.27
PAP therapy is an efficacious treatment of OSA; however, effectiveness can be limited
by patient nonadherence, which is not uncommon and can be caused by a variety of factors.28
Strategies that may be effective for some patients in improving adherence with therapy
include changing the mask interface (superior tolerability of the nasal interface
has been suggested), adding humidification to the PAP circuit (effectiveness may be
limited to those with nasal congestion), adding a chinstrap to the mask interface
(which also appears to reduce air leak and residual AHI),29 and utilizing an APAP
mode.24 Cognitive behavioral therapy aimed at improving patients’ self‐efficacy with
respect to their health has been shown to increase adherence in several studies.28
Early assessment and prompt troubleshooting of any problems is extremely important
following treatment initiation, because use during the first 2 weeks predicts long‐term
adherence to therapy.23
Behavioral therapies for sleep apnea include weight loss, positional therapy, and
avoidance of alcohol or other sedating agents (Table 3). Weight loss reduces the severity
of OSA in most overweight patients, with a significant correlation between the magnitude
of weight loss and the reduction in AHI.30, 31, 32 Weight loss can be either medical
or surgical.33 Intensive lifestyle modifications and weight loss may reduce the risk
of future cardiovascular events including mortality in overweight/obese patients via
mechanisms unrelated to OSA34, 35 and therefore should be recommended to all such
patients with OSA in addition to other therapies.36 Bariatric surgery is efficacious
in terms of both weight loss and reduction in AHI and therefore should be considered
in select obese patients with OSA.37 Although weight loss can reduce AHI, most patients
will require some form of additional OSA therapy, because only 10% to 30% of patients
have achieved an AHI <5 in medical or surgical weight loss trials.33
Table 3
Behavioral Therapies for Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Treatment
Patient Selection
Weight loss
All overweight or obese patients should be encouraged to lose weight, as adjunct to
primary therapy
Positional therapy
Can be used as either a secondary or adjunctive therapy in patients with significant
reduction in nonsupine position as compared with supine
Can be considered as primary therapy in select cases when normalization of AHI in
a nonsupine position has been demonstrated by polysomnography and adherence can be
assured
Avoidance of alcohol or other substances
Patients should be encouraged to minimize alcohol intake
Physicians should monitor for and avoid prescribing medications with potential to
exacerbate sleep apnea, such as benzodiazepines, opiates, or other central nervous
system depressants
AHI indicates apnea–hypopnea index.
Positional therapy involves use of a positioning device to maintain a position other
than supine during sleep, as supine positioning is associated with greater reductions
in airway dimensions.38 The role of positional therapy is predominantly secondary,
but it can be used as a supplemental primary therapy in patients demonstrated as having
a low‐AHI when in a nonsupine position.39 It is estimated that >50% of all patients
with an AHI >5 events/h have a positional component to their sleep apnea.40
Oral appliances, such as a mandibular advancement device and tongue‐retaining devices,
work by mechanically enlarging the upper airway by displacing the tongue forward and
reducing its collapsibility during sleep,41 mimicking the Jaw‐Thrust technique used
by anesthesiologists to open the airway in sedated patients. Both the mandibular advancement
device and tongue‐retaining devices increase cross‐sectional area of the airway at
the level of the velopharynx and oropharynx, although the change in diameter is greater
with tongue‐retaining devices than with the mandibular advancement device.42 Oral
appliances are effective in reducing AHI in patients with OSA43 but are less efficacious
than PAP therapy.41, 43 Baseline AHI ≥30 and maximum therapeutic CPAP pressure >12 mm Hg
are predictive of oral appliance treatment failure (success defined by achieving either
AHI <5, or 5≤ AHI <10 with >50% reduction from baseline), and thus these clinical
features should be considered when selecting patients for oral appliance therapy.44
Oral appliances are recommended for treatment of primary snoring without OSA, and
in mild‐to‐moderate OSA in cases where the patient strongly prefers to try an appliance
over PAP therapy. They are also preferable compared with no therapy for primary snoring
without OSA, or OSA of any severity in patients who are intolerant to or unwilling
to try PAP therapy.43
Upper airway surgery is designed to address anatomic airway obstruction in the upper
airway and consists of a variety of different techniques. Individual surgical procedures
may be classified as nasal, upper pharyngeal, lower pharyngeal, or global upper airway
depending on the anatomic level at which obstruction is targeted. Many patients have
obstructive anatomy at multiple sites and require multilevel surgical correction,
in which several procedures are performed either simultaneously or in a staged manner.
Surgery can be considered as primary therapy for patients with primary snoring with
OSA, in patients with mild‐to‐moderate OSA where they may supersede oral appliances,
and in cases of obstructive anatomy where surgery would be considered highly effective,
and as secondary therapy for patients with OSA who experience inadequate response
to or cannot tolerate PAP therapy.39
Surgery is an effective management option for the treatment of OSA, with reported
polysomnographic success rates (generally defined as a ≥50% reduction in AHI to an
AHI value ≤20) of 35% to 83% in the literature.45, 46, 47, 48, 49 Limitations of the
reported efficacy in the literature include significant heterogeneity of surgical
technique as well as patient selection based on individual anatomic characteristics
and surgeon preference. An overview of the different types of surgical procedures
used to treat OSA along with reported efficacy of each technique is presented in Table 4.50
One particular form of surgery, hypoglossal nerve stimulation, has a growing body
of literature supporting its efficacy. The STAR (Stimulation Treatment for Apnea Reduction)
trial enrolled 126 patients with moderate‐to‐severe OSA who had difficulty adhering
to CPAP and surgically implanted hypoglossal simulators.51 After 18 months, there
was a 68% reduction in median AHI as well as improved scores on the Epworth Sleepiness
Scale and Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire with only 2 serious adverse events
reported throughout the trial.52
Table 4
Overview of Surgical Procedures for Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Anatomic Region
Specific Procedures
Outcomes
Nasal
Turbinate reduction
Septoplasty
Nasal valve surgery
Rhinoplasty
Nasal polypectomy
Adenoidectomy
Significant 2.66 cm H2O reduction in required CPAP pressure (95% CI 1.67–3.65; P<0.00001)
reported in meta‐analysis following nasal surgeries45
Average nightly CPAP use increased from 3.0±3.1 h preoperatively to 5.5±2.0 h following
surgery
Upper pharyngeal
Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty
Uvulopalatal flap
Several other variants of UPPP are used
Tonsillectomy
Pooled polysomnographic success rate 50%a for UPPP in meta‐analyses; however, results
from individual studies vary significantly, with success rates up to 83% in more selective
cohorts50
Lower pharyngeal
Tongue reduction procedures
Tongue advancement/stabilization procedures
Epiglottis procedures
Polysomnographic success rate ranges from 35% to 62% across studies of various hypopharyngeal
procedures48
Global upper airway procedures
Maxillomandibular advancement
Tracheotomy
Upper airway stimulation
Pooled efficacy results from meta‐analyses of each procedure type:
MMA: 86% success ratea and 43% cure rateb, 49
Tracheotomy: significant reduction in AHI by mean 79.82 events/h (95% CI 63.7–95.9,
P<0.00001)46
Hypoglossal stimulation: significant reduction in AHI by mean 17.51 events/h (95%
CI 20.7–14.3)47
AHI indicates apnea–hypopnea index; CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure; MMA,
maxillomandibular advancement; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea; UPPP, uvulopalatopharyngoplasty.
a
Polysomnographic success defined as ≥50% reduction from baseline AHI and postsurgical
AHI <20 events/h.
b
Cure rate defined as postsurgical AHI <5 events/h.
Risks of upper airway surgery include those inherent to any surgical procedure such
as bleeding, infection, and complications related to anesthesia. The latter category
as well as perioperative cardiovascular complications are known to be higher in patients
with OSA as compared with the general surgical population.53, 54 Additional risks
vary according to the specific procedural technique utilized and include, but are
not limited to, airway compromise, dysphagia, local anesthesia or paresis, vocal changes,
globus sensation, and taste changes.55
Cardiovascular Conditions Associated With OSA
Resistant Hypertension
Of all the cardiovascular disease processes associated with OSA, the relationship
with hypertension is the best established. Multiple observational studies have demonstrated
this association,56, 57 and an influential study by Peppard et al, which followed
709 patients in the Wisconsin Sleep Cohort, found a linear, dose‐dependent relationship
between the severity of OSA at baseline and the relative risk of developing hypertension
during follow‐up.58 The relationship is particularly strong between OSA and resistant
hypertension, commonly defined as inability to adequately control blood pressure despite
use of 3 antihypertensive agents including a diuretic or adequate blood pressure control
requiring ≥4 agents. For example, 1 study found the prevalence of OSA to be 71% in
patients with resistant hypertension versus 38% in those with essential hypertension.59
Several randomized controlled trials have demonstrated a reduction in systemic blood
pressure in patients treated with CPAP. A recent meta‐analysis of 5 randomized trials
enrolling 457 total patients found a significant reduction in 24‐hour ambulatory blood
pressure (4.78 mm Hg [95% CI, 1.61–7.95] systolic and 2.95 mm Hg [95% CI, 0.53–5.37]
diastolic) as well as a mean nocturnal diastolic blood pressure (1.53 mm Hg [95% CI,
0–3.07]) in patients treated with CPAP.60 While the magnitude of this reduction was
relatively modest, it has been shown that even small reductions in blood pressure
confer reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular events.61 Based on these data, we believe
that diagnostic testing is reasonable in all patients with resistant hypertension,
including those without clear signs or symptoms of OSA.
Pulmonary Hypertension
OSA is strongly associated with pulmonary hypertension (PH) and may play a causative
role in its pathophysiology. Whereas ≈10% to 20% of patients with moderate‐to‐severe
OSA have coexisting PH,62 the prevalence of OSA in patients with PH diagnosed by right
heart catheterization has been estimated to be 70% to 80%.63 Both hypercapnia and
nocturnal episodes of hypoxia can trigger pulmonary arteriolar constriction leading
to acute, reversible elevation in pulmonary artery pressures. Signaling pathways implicated
in hypoxic vasoconstriction in PH include nitric oxide, endothelin, angiopoietin‐1,
serotonin, and NADPH‐oxidase.64 Chronic hypoxia activates additional inflammatory
pathways resulting in pulmonary vascular remodeling and, eventually, irreversible
increases in pulmonary vascular resistance.65 Additional postulated mechanisms contributing
to PH include increased right‐sided preload resulting from negative transthoracic
pressure during periods of airway obstruction, generation of reactive oxygen species
as well as endothelial dysfunction within the pulmonary vasculature.66 Echocardiographic
evidence of right ventricular remodeling and dysfunction has been observed in association
with OSA as well.67 In addition to direct mechanisms involving the pulmonary vasculature,
OSA can lead to PH indirectly via contributing to left HF with associated postcapillary
PH such as in patients with refractory hypertension.
Pulmonary hypertension resulting solely from OSA is generally mild; however, OSA can
further exacerbate elevations in pulmonary artery pressures and pulmonary vascular
resistance when superimposed on PH associated with other underlying causes. Importantly,
the presence of OSA in patients found to have severe PH has been associated with increased
mortality.68 Regarding the effects of OSA treatment in patients with PH, the current
literature, while limited by small sample size and paucity of randomized trials, does
suggest a benefit. Observational studies have demonstrated reduction in pulmonary
vascular resistance in patients treated with CPAP.69 In the 1 randomized trial to
date, treatment of OSA with CPAP was associated with a significant reduction in pulmonary
artery systolic pressure (28.9 mm Hg versus 24 mm Hg) when compared with a sham device.70
Given the detrimental effects of sleep apnea in patients with PH and limited evidence
suggesting a beneficial effect of CPAP, we recommend clinical screening of all PH
patients for sleep apnea with a comprehensive sleep assessment. In addition, we believe
that performing some form of diagnostic sleep testing in all patients with PH is reasonable.
We generally perform overnight oximetry testing in patients felt to be at low risk
of sleep apnea following comprehensive sleep assessment to exclude nocturnal hypoxemia.
Patients with suspected sleep apnea based on the presence of SDB symptoms or risk
factors, as well as patients found to have nocturnal hypoxemia on home testing, should
be referred for formal polysomnography. This approach is in agreement with the recommendations
provided by the ACCF/AHA 2009 Expert Consensus Document on Pulmonary Hypertension71
as well as the 2015 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary
hypertension.72
Heart Failure
Sleep apnea is highly prevalent in patients with HF, with studies indicating a prevalence
between 50% and 70%.73, 74 Notably, CSA accounts for approximately two thirds of the
sleep apnea observed in this population, while OSA comprises a significant minority.
An inverse relationship exists between the prevalence of CSA and both left ventricular
ejection fraction and the clinical severity of HF.73 While CSA and OSA coexist in
a significant proportion of cases, one acts as the dominant phenotype in the majority
of patients.73 Because HSAT devices have not been validated to diagnose CSA, current
guidelines recommend polysomnography as the preferred diagnostic modality for patients
with HF.16 A single study of 53 inpatients with decompensated HF found a high concordance
between AHI, classified as either obstructive or central, measured during concurrent
polysomnography and HSAT monitoring, with correlation coefficients of 0.91 (95% CI,
0.84–0.95) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96–0.99), respectively,75 suggesting the potential
of HSAT for a role in evaluating patients at risk for complicated SDB in the future
pending further investigation.
Sleep apnea is prevalent in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction
as well as those with clinically overt HF, with 1 study diagnosing moderate‐to‐severe
sleep apnea in 66% of patients with the former.76 Coexisting sleep apnea has been
associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes, including mortality, in patients
with HF.77, 78 Several pathophysiologic processes that result directly from apneic
events may explain this association, including activation of the sympathetic nervous
system79 as well as increased preload and afterload resulting from perturbation of
intrathoracic pressure while attempting to inspire against occluded airways.80 Additional
mechanisms by which sleep apnea may worsen outcomes in patients with HF include exacerbating
systemic hypertension,81 increased risk of arrhythmias including sudden cardiac death,82
and an elevated risk of coronary events.83
Studies investigating the potential benefits of PAP therapy with respect to underlying
heart failure in this patient population have been conflicting and ultimately disappointing.
Several studies looking at surrogate end points suggested beneficial effects associated
with PAP therapy in sleep apnea patients with HF. Reductions in sympathetic nervous
system signaling have been observed in patients with both OSA and CSA treated with
CPAP.84, 85 CPAP also reduces the pro‐arrhythmic state associated with OSA, having
been shown to decrease ventricular ectopy86 as well as the risk of recurrent AF.87,
88 Furthermore, CPAP results in favorable hemodynamic effects, including improved
left ventricular systolic89 and diastolic function90 in OSA patients with high wedge
pressures.
These promising early studies prompted larger RCT looking at hard clinical end points,
particularly in patients with predominant CSA. The CANPAP (Canadian Continuous Positive
Airway Pressure for Patients with Central Sleep Apnea and Heart Failure) trial investigated
the effect of CPAP treatment in patients with HF and CSA. No benefit was seen in the
patients treated with CPAP; however, a post hoc analysis suggested a reduction in
mortality among patients for whom CPAP therapy resulted in a significant improvement
in AHI (to <15 events/h).91 While CPAP is effective in relieving obstructive events,
many patients with HF have persistent central apneas and hypopneas despite therapy
with appropriately titrated CPAP. Adaptive servoventilation (ASV) is a form of bi‐level
positive airway pressure therapy in which the degree of pressure support (difference
between inspiratory and expiratory pressures) varies between respiratory cycles in
order to maintain stable minute ventilation. A backup rate is programmed to trigger
breaths during periods of central apnea. This mode therefore offers a theoretic advantage
in HF patients with Cheyne‐Stokes breathing, which is characterized by periods of
hyperventilation, hypoventilation, and central apnea.92
The SAVIOR‐C (Study of the Effects of Adaptive Servo‐ventilation Therapy on Cardiac
Function and Remodeling in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure) trial failed to show
an improvement in ejection fraction or brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level after
24 weeks of ASV therapy in patients with HF and CSA but did reveal improvements in
quality of life and clinical status.93 The SERVE‐HF (Treatment of Sleep‐Disordered
Breathing with Predominant Central Sleep Apnea by Adaptive Servo Ventilation in Patients
with Heart Failure) trial was designed to test the effect of ASV on mortality in patients
with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤45% and predominantly central sleep apnea.
Despite effectively reducing the AHI, ASV failed to confer a survival benefit, and
actually was associated with an increase in cardiovascular mortality (29.9% versus
24%).94 Postulated mechanisms for this finding include reductions in cardiac output
related to the higher levels of PAP delivered in ASV mode, as well as the hypothesis
that CSA is actually a compensatory mechanism in patients with severe HF with beneficial
properties that were attenuated by ASV treatment. Additionally, the proprietary algorithm
used in SERVE‐HF has been shown to induce episodes of significant hyperventilation
in some patients, which some suspect may have been related to the increase in mortality.95
The question of whether SERVE‐HF's findings represent a class effect of ASV versus
that of 1 specific algorithm may be answered by the ongoing ADVENT‐HF (Effect of Adaptive
Servo Ventilation on Survival and Hospital Admissions in Heart Failure) trial, which
is investigating the effect of ASV therapy on mortality and morbidity in HF patients
(left ventricular ejection fraction ≤45%) with SDB using an updated algorithm.96
Given these results, treatment of ASV is contraindicated in patients with HF and CSA.
In contrast to CSA, large randomized trials looking at the effect of CPAP therapy
on hard end points in HF patients with predominantly obstructive sleep apnea are lacking.
Given the beneficial effect of CPAP on surrogate end points discussed above, in context
of the observed increase in adverse events including mortality associated with OSA
as well as the absence of studies suggesting harm, we suggest diagnostic testing in
HF patients with suspected sleep apnea based on nocturnal symptoms and/or risk factors
discovered during a comprehensive sleep assessment.
Atrial Fibrillation
Similar to OSA, AF is common in the general population, with a prevalence of 1% to
2%.97 In patients with OSA, the prevalence of AF is ≈5%,98 while notably the prevalence
of OSA in patients diagnosed with AF has been reported as high as 32% to 39%.99, 100,
101 A significant independent association between the 2 disorders exists even after
controlling for confounding conditions such as systemic hypertension, obesity, and
HF.101 While multiple mechanisms have been postulated to explain this association,
the most important appear to be nocturnal surges in sympathetic tone, systemic hypertension,
and structural remodeling, particularly of the atria. Alterations in both sympathetic
and parasympathetic system regulation have been observed in association with OSA.79
During an apneic episode, vagal efferent output is enhanced, causing transient bradycardia
as well as shortened atrial effective refractory period with resultant susceptibility
to excitatory stimuli, an effect that can be reversed with atropine or vagotomy. In
animal models of OSA, episodic hypoxemia results in surges of sympathetic nervous
system output as well as activation of the renin–angiotensin system, reducing the
threshold for AF induction.102 The observation that renal denervation and sympathetic
ganglion block provide significant but incomplete protection against apnea‐associated
AF induction suggests that additional mechanisms beyond neurohormonal activation are
relevant.103, 104, 105 Over time, OSA promotes structural remodeling of both the ventricles
and atria, providing an additional pro‐arrhythmic mechanism. Exaggerated swings in
intrathoracic pressure, as are seen during apneic events, have been shown to cause
acute atrial dilation as well as increased frequency of premature beats even in healthy
subjects.106, 107 Chronic repetitive apneic events are associated with progressive
left atrial dilation and fibrosis108, 109 as well as left ventricular hypertrophy
and diastolic dysfunction.110 Electrophysiologic studies of dilated left atria following
repetitive apneic events have revealed slowed atrial conduction, reduced electrogram
amplitudes, and complex fractionated atrial electrograms providing mechanistic support
for atrial remodeling in AF related to OSA.109 Significant slowing of atrial conduction
also occurs during hypercapnia, even in the absence of hypoxia.111 The susceptibility
to AF among patients with OSA likely reflects the combined effects of these various
mechanisms, with neurohormonal activation and hypercapnia triggered by acute apneic
events superimposed on the vulnerable substrate of a remodeled heart.
Beyond the apparent epidemiologic association between the 2 conditions, there is a
growing body of evidence to suggest a significant role of OSA in recurrent and/or
treatment‐refractory AF. In the ORBIT‐AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment
of Atrial Fibrillation), which included >10 000 patients with AF, those with coexisting
OSA had significantly worse AF symptoms and were more likely to be on rhythm control
therapy.87 An increased risk of recurrent AF following an incident episode88 and worse
outcomes after catheter ablation112, 113, 114 have been observed in patients with
OSA. Importantly, there is evidence that treatment of OSA may modify these risks.
In the ORBIT‐AF cohort, OSA patients treated with CPAP were significantly less likely
to progress to permanent AF as compared with OSA patients not receiving CPAP.87 Furthermore,
multiple observational studies have demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk
of recurrent AF following catheter ablation among OSA patients treated with CPAP as
compared with OSA patients not receiving treatment.112, 115, 116, 117 A meta‐analysis
of these studies found that in OSA patients treated with CPAP, the AF recurrence risk
following catheter ablation was not significantly different from a control population
without OSA, whereas OSA patients not treated with CPAP had a statistically significant
57% increased risk of recurrence (P<0.001).113 Important limitations of these studies
include observational design, diagnosis of sleep apnea via clinical history and/or
standardized questionnaires in lieu of formal sleep testing in the majority of cases,
and determination of CPAP use via self‐reporting.
Overall, the current body of literature in this area suggests a possible benefit of
treating OSA with CPAP with respect to AF burden and risk of recurrence during rhythm
control, particularly following catheter ablation. On the basis of these data, we
suggest diagnostic testing with either HSAT or polysomnography in patients with suspected
sleep apnea following comprehensive sleep assessment based on nocturnal symptoms and/or
risk factors when catheter ablation is planned. This recommendation is consistent
with the 2017 Heart Rhythm Society Expert Consensus Statement on catheter and surgical
ablation of AF.118 Furthermore, we believe it is reasonable for clinicians to consider
diagnostic testing in select patients with suspected sleep apnea managed via rhythm
control strategies other than ablation, although there is currently insufficient evidence
to provide specific clinical criteria guiding selection from within this large and
heterogeneous group of patients. Providers must therefore apply individualized clinical
judgment in selecting patients for HSAT or polysomnography testing, keeping in mind
that patients with higher‐risk features (history of recurrent AF after cardioversion,
anti‐arrhythmic drug failure, etc) are more likely to benefit from detection and treatment
of OSA. Patients with AF found to have symptoms of SDB and at risk for moderate‐to‐severe
OSA during comprehensive sleep assessment should be referred for diagnostic testing,
similar to patients without comorbid AF.
Other Arrhythmias
Beyond AF, OSA has been linked with a spectrum of other cardiac rhythm disturbances
as well as sudden cardiac death. Simantirakis et al reported a 22% prevalence of prolonged
pauses and bradycardia in patients with moderate‐to‐severe OSA who received long‐term
monitoring with an implanted loop recorder.119 Patients are considered to have the
“tachy‐brady syndrome” when such bradyarrhythmias alternate with AF or other forms
of supraventricular tachycardia. The risk of ventricular arrhythmias also appears
to be higher among patients with OSA. Mehra et al found a significantly higher prevalence
of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (5.3% versus 1.2%, P=0.004) among patients
with severe OSA compared with controls.98 Similarly, severe OSA was associated with
a significantly higher overall risk of complex ventricular ectopy, defined as nonsustained
ventricular tachycardia, bigeminy, trigeminy, or quadrigeminy (25% versus 14.5%, P=0.002).
Importantly, an increased risk of sudden cardiac death has been reported in patients
with severe OSA, particularly among those observed to have nocturnal oxygen desaturation
to <78%.120 There are limited data suggesting a beneficial effect of CPAP therapy
on reducing rhythm disturbances in patients with OSA119, 121, 122; however, additional
study is necessary given the small size and predominantly observational nature of
these trials.
Coronary Artery Disease, Cerebrovascular Disease, or Patients Without Established
CVD Who Are at High Risk for Future Adverse Cardiovascular Events
Associations have been identified between OSA and other forms of CVD in addition to
those described above, in particular coronary artery disease (CAD)58, 123 and cerebrovascular
disease.124 Among the pathophysiologic mechanisms linking OSA with CAD and cerebrovascular
disease are some of those described above as involved in other forms of CVD, including
increased sympathetic nervous system activity, oxidative stress, and predilection
to poorly controlled and/or resistant hypertension. Additional mechanisms have been
identified as well, including endothelial dysfunction,125, 126 promotion of a procoagulable
state,127 and metabolic dysregulation characterized by insulin resistance.128, 129
Treatment of OSA with CPAP has been shown to mitigate these processes,127, 130, 131
offering a plausible mechanism by which treating OSA could influence cardiovascular
outcomes.
Support for efficacy of OSA treatment on improving cardiovascular outcomes came from
early observational studies. A prospective analysis of 54 patients with known CAD
and OSA found a significant reduction in the composite end point of cardiovascular
death, acute coronary syndrome, hospitalization for HF, or need for coronary revascularization
(hazard ratio 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09–0.62; P<0.01) among patients treated for OSA with
either CPAP or upper airway surgery; however, these results may have been subject
to significant bias because the untreated arm consisted of patients who had refused
treatment despite a recommendation from their provider.132 An observational study
that followed 223 patients for 5 years after a stroke found an increased risk of mortality
in patients unable to tolerate CPAP versus those who tolerated CPAP (hazard ratio
1.58; 95% CI, 1.01–2.49; P=0.04).133 Similarly, a 444 patient cohort that included
patients treated with CPAP, weight loss, or surgery found a significant reduction
in mortality associated with each individual treatment modality as compared with untreated
patients. When compared with the general population using census‐derived survival
data, untreated patients had a significantly higher mortality rate, whereas mortality
did not differ significantly between the treated patients and general population.134
Disappointingly though, no randomized trials investigating the impact of PAP therapy
on cardiovascular outcomes have shown a clear benefit with respect to hard cardiovascular
outcomes. In patients with a history of stroke, Hsu et al found no reduction in recurrent
cerebrovascular events in patients with OSA treated with PAP therapy.135 Peker et al
randomized 244 nonsleepy patients with CAD following revascularization and moderate‐to‐severe
OSA to APAP versus no PAP therapy and found no difference in the composite cardiovascular
event outcome after a median of 57 months follow‐up.136
The SAVE (Sleep Apnea Cardiovascular Endpoints) trial was the largest RCT designed
to investigate the question of whether treating OSA with CPAP may improve cardiovascular
outcomes in patients with established CVD.5 SAVE randomized 2717 patients with moderate‐to‐severe
OSA and either CAD or cerebrovascular disease to CPAP plus usual care or usual care
alone and followed them for a mean period of 3.7 years. The trial failed to demonstrate
a significant reduction in the primary end point (a composite of cardiovascular death,
myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or transient
ischemic attack) among patients treated with CPAP in addition to usual care (hazard
ratio 1.10; 95% CI, 0.91–1.32; P=0.34). Among secondary end points, CPAP was associated
with significant reductions in snoring and daytime sleepiness, improvement in health‐related
quality of life and mood, and fewer days off work because of poor health.
While these studies included patients with established CVD, the role of PAP therapy
for primary prevention in OSA patients without established CVD has also been queried.
Barbé et al enrolled 725 nonsleepy patients with moderate‐to‐severe OSA but no prior
history of CVD and randomized them to CPAP versus no therapy. After a median of 4 years,
there was no difference in the incidence of systemic hypertension or cardiovascular
events including cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI or stroke, TIA, or HF.137 A 2017
meta‐analysis of 10 RCTs (of which 6 required established CVD for enrollment) by Yu
et al showed no association between PAP therapy and major cardiovascular events (hazard
ratio 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53–1.13; P=0.19).138
While PAP therapy appears to be effective in reducing symptoms of OSA, the results
of these randomized trials do not support its efficacy in reducing the risk of adverse
cardiovascular events in patients with OSA. Several potential limitations to the available
evidence have been cited.6 First, suboptimal PAP adherence was common, with a median
duration of <4 hours/night reported in 6 of the 10 RCTs included in the meta‐analysis.138
In SAVE, by far the largest of all these trials, the median duration of PAP use was
3.3 hours per night, and fewer than half (42%) of those in the CPAP arm achieved “good
adherence,” defined as ≥4 hours of CPAP use per night.5 Yu's meta‐analysis revealed
that in the 4 RCTs achieving median adherence >4 hours/night, PAP therapy was associated
with a significantly lower risk of adverse cardiovascular events (relative risk 0.58;
95% CI, 0.34–0.99); however, the implication of this finding is uncertain given the
absence of a similar association on a subgroup analysis of patients from all 10 RCTs
with good PAP adherence using meta‐regression, possible confounding because of nonrandomized
differences between adherent and nonadherent patients, and the inherent limitations
of post‐hoc, subgroup analysis findings. Secondly, patients with severe sleep apnea
symptoms (commonly defined by Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) >10) were excluded from
several of the randomized trials, and some authors have hypothesized that benefits
of PAP therapy on preventing adverse cardiovascular outcomes may be limited to these
higher‐risk patients with severe OSA. Third, all patients enrolled in the SAVE trial
were diagnosed with OSA using HSAT, despite guidelines recommending polysomnography
to be used for patients with established significant cardiopulmonary disease, which
was one of the inclusion criteria for entry into this study. Therefore, there is the
possibility that a significant percentage of the enrolled population may have been
affected by Cheyne‐Stokes breathing or other forms of mixed apneas that would not
have experienced the same benefit from PAP therapy as in patients with strictly obstructive
apneas.6
Although these limitations may serve as topics of interest for future investigations,
the best available evidence does not support the use of PAP therapy specifically for
the purpose of reducing the risk of future adverse events at this time. Therefore,
we suggest diagnostic testing for patients with established CAD, cerebrovascular disease,
or elevated cardiovascular risk in whom sleep apnea is clinically suspected because
of signs or symptoms uncovered during clinical sleep assessment.
Perioperative Risk
Comorbid OSA is relevant to the perioperative management of patients with CVD planning
to undergo surgery. OSA not only increases the risk of respiratory complications,
but some studies have reported an increased risk of postoperative AF and other cardiac
complications.53 The high prevalence of undiagnosed OSA combined with the observation
that perioperative complications are more common in patients with undiagnosed OSA139
has prompted many centers to incorporate screening for OSA as a routine component
of preoperative assessment. Various sleep questionnaires have been utilized in this
role, with STOP‐BANG being the most validated in the surgical patient population.
A STOP‐BANG score ≥3 identifies patients at risk of OSA and has been independently
associated with an increased risk of perioperative complications.54 In patients with
previously diagnosed OSA, preoperative evaluation should include a review of prior
sleep study results to confirm the type and severity of sleep apnea as well as assessment
of their compliance with PAP and/or other therapies.
Identifying patients with an established diagnosis or high risk for OSA during preoperative
assessment provides an opportunity for targeted interventions that may reduce the
risk of perioperative cardiopulmonary complications. Specific management issues that
warrant consideration include determining the need for additional preoperative cardiopulmonary
evaluation and optimization, selection of an appropriate anesthetic strategy, the
intensity and duration of postoperative monitoring, and the provision of PAP therapy
postoperatively. The 2016 Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guidelines on Preoperative
Screening and Assessment of Adult Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea offers guidance
with respect to these questions.53 A preoperative assessment algorithm reflecting
these guidelines is displayed in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Algorithm for preoperative OSA evaluation. Specific protocols for intra‐ and postprocedure
monitoring of patients with known diagnosis or at high risk for OSA vary by institution
and from patient to patient based on individual clinical characteristics. OSA indicates
obstructive sleep apnea; PAP, positive airway pressure.
Summary of Proposed Recommendations
Evaluation
Given the high prevalence of sleep apnea in patients with known CVD, we recommend
that clinicians perform routine screening for symptoms of SDB in patients with established
CVD.
Reasonable strategies for screening include focused questioning performed by the provider
as well as use of standardized questionnaires such as STOP‐BANG, the ESS, or the Berlin
questionnaire.
Patients reporting any symptoms should undergo a comprehensive sleep assessment.
Screening for OSA should be incorporated into routine preoperative assessment, and
in particular we suggest using tools such as STOP‐BANG for this purpose.
Our approach to selecting patients for diagnostic sleep testing following a comprehensive
sleep assessment varies based upon the underlying cardiovascular comorbidity (Figure 2):
We suggest diagnostic testing for all patients, including those without symptoms of
SDB, with the following forms of CVD:
Resistant hypertension, defined as inadequately controlled blood pressure despite
therapy with ≥3 oral antihypertensive agents including a diuretic, or adequate blood
pressure control requiring ≥4 agents.
Pulmonary hypertension.
Recurrent AF following either cardioversion or ablation.
We suggest diagnostic testing for patients with established or at risk for CVD in
whom sleep apnea is suspected following a comprehensive sleep assessment:
Symptomatic HF (New York Heart Association Class II‐IV) or asymptomatic (New York
Heart Association Class I) left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction <40%).
AF, particularly in patients who are persistently symptomatic, challenging to pharmacologically
rate control, or in whom a rhythm control strategy will be pursued.
Sick sinus syndrome.
Tachy‐brady syndrome.
Ventricular tachycardia or frequent ventricular ectopy.
Survivors of sudden cardiac death.
Coronary artery disease.
Cerebrovascular disease.
Patients at elevated risk for future cardiovascular events.
Routine screening for nocturnal symptoms of SDB should be repeated at defined intervals
during long‐term follow‐up in patients with CVD or other significant risk factors
who are not referred for diagnostic testing following their initial comprehensive
sleep assessment.
Figure 2
Proposed algorithm to select patients for formal diagnostic sleep testing based on
underlying cardiovascular condition. CV indicates cardiovascular; LV, left ventricular.
Diagnostic testing strategy: We agree with the following recommendations from the
2017 American Academy of Sleep Medicine regarding diagnosing OSA:
Clinical tools, questionnaires, and prediction algorithms should not be used to diagnose
OSA in the absence of performing polysomnography or HSAT.
Either polysomnography or HSAT may be used to diagnose OSA in uncomplicated patients.
Those with a negative or inconclusive HSAT should undergo polysomnography.
For those with a high pretest probability and negative polysomnography, a repeat polysomnography
may be considered.
Polysomnography should be used rather than HSAT in complicated patients, defined as
those with significant underlying cardiopulmonary disease, potential respiratory muscle
weakness caused by neuromuscular disorders, documented awake hypoventilation or suspected
sleep‐related hypoventilation, chronic opioid use, stroke, severe insomnia, or suspected
sleep‐related movement disorder such as restless leg syndrome.
Treatment: We agree with the recommendations from the 2009 Adult Obstructive Sleep
Apnea Task Force of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine regarding treatment of
OSA:
Clinical correlation is necessary to determine whether CPAP‐intolerant patients should
be referred for upper airway surgery or oral appliance therapy. A multidisciplinary
approach to the management of OSA should be used as appropriate for each individual
patient, including involvement of physicians trained in sleep medicine, otolaryngology–head
and neck surgery, cardiology, maxillofacial surgery, and dentists trained in sleep
dentistry.
All patients with diagnosed OSA should be offered treatment.
Follow‐up sleep testing should be performed to assess efficacy of non‐PAP therapies
as part of a routine follow‐up plan in addition to assessment of symptoms and other
clinical parameters.
For patients with difficulty tolerating CPAP, attempts at modifying the treatment
should be made to improve compliance.
ASV mode should not be used in patients with HF and low ejection fraction, in whom
there is evidence of harm.
Oral appliances (OAs): We agree with the 2015 recommendations from the AASM and AADSM
regarding OAs.
OAs may be offered as primary therapy in primary snoring without sleep apnea.
OAs may be offered as primary therapy in patients with mild‐to‐moderate OSA who strongly
prefer to avoid CPAP therapy.
Patients who do not respond to/tolerate PAP can be considered for OAs.
OAs may be considered as adjunctive to PAP in selected cases.
Custom OAs provided by a qualified dentist are preferred to noncustomized OAs whenever
feasible. Patients treated with OAs should have routine qualified dental follow‐up
and monitoring for assessment of effectiveness and potential side effects.
Upper airway surgery
Upper airway surgery may be offered as primary therapy in primary snoring without
sleep apnea.
Patients who do not respond to/tolerate PAP can be considered for upper airway surgery.
Upper airway surgery may be considered as adjunctive to PAP or OAs in selected cases.
Weight loss: All overweight and obese patients with OSA should be encouraged to lose
weight. Patients with comorbid CVD stand to gain even greater benefit from weight
loss and should be referred to a formal weight loss program, resource permitting.
Disclosures
Dr Kezirian has received research funding from Inspire Medical System and served on
the advisory boards of Nyxoah, ReVENT Medical, Pillar Palatal, Cognition Life Science,
Gerard Scientific, and Berendo Scientific. Dr De Marco has received research funding
from Pfizer, honoraria from Novartis, and served as a consultant for Boston Scientific,
Actelion, and Bellerophon. Dr Mirzayan owns and operates apnea‐centric facilities
that treat CPAP‐intolerant patients with oral appliances; in addition, he receives
payment to provide lectures and training to dentists on the subject of screening and
treatment of sleep apnea in the dental practice context. Dr Goldberg has served as
a consultant and has minor ownership interest in Siesta Medical. The remaining authors
have no disclosures to report.