• PintoAna Carolina Pereira NunesACPNCochrane Brazil, Health Technology Assessment Center, São Paulo, Brazil.Biological and Health Sciences Department, Federal University of Amapa, Amapá, Brazil.Post-graduation program in Evidence-based Health, Department o, Aline Rocha, Daniela V Pachito, Luciano F Drager, and Geraldo Lorenzi-Filho.
• Cochrane Brazil, Health Technology Assessment Center, São Paulo, Brazil.
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2022 Oct 24; 10 (10): CD012889CD012889.

BackgroundCentral sleep apnoea (CSA) is characterised by abnormal patterns of ventilation during sleep due to a dysfunctional drive to breathe. Consequently, people with CSA may present poor sleep quality, sleep fragmentation, inattention, fatigue, daytime sleepiness, and reduced quality of life.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPV) for the treatment of adults with CSA.Search MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus on 6 September 2021. We applied no restrictions on language of publication. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of included studies to identify additional studies.Selection CriteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported in full text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data.Data Collection And AnalysisTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 1.0, and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. In the case of disagreement, a third review author was consulted.Main ResultsWe included 15 RCTs with a total of 1936 participants, ranging from 10 to 1325 participants. All studies had important methodological limitations. We assessed most studies (11 studies) as at high risk of bias for at least one domain, and all studies as at unclear risk of bias for at least two domains. The trials included participants aged > 18 years old, of which 70% to 100% were men, who were followed from one week to 60 months. The included studies assessed the effects of different modes of NIPV and CSA. Most participants had CSA associated with chronic heart failure. Because CSA encompasses a variety of causes and underlying clinical conditions, data were carefully analysed, and different conditions and populations were not pooled. The findings for the primary outcomes for the seven evaluated comparisons are presented below.  Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) plus best supportive care versus best supportive care in CSA associated with chronic heart failure In the short term, CPAP plus best supportive care may reduce central apnoea hypopnoea index (AHI) (mean difference (MD) -14.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) -20.11 to -9.09; 1 study; 205 participants). However, CPAP plus best supportive care may result in little to no difference in cardiovascular mortality compared to best supportive care alone. The evidence for the effect of CPAP plus best supportive care on all-cause mortality is very uncertain. No adverse effects were observed with CPAP, and the results for adverse events in the best supportive care group were not reported. Adaptive servo ventilation (ASV) versus CPAP in CSA associated with chronic heart failure The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ASV versus CPAP on quality of life evaluated in both the short and medium term. Data on adverse events were not reported, and it is not clear whether data were sought but not found. ASV versus bilevel ventilation in CSA associated with chronic heart failure In the short term, ASV may result in little to no difference in central AHI. No adverse events were detected with ASV, and the results for adverse events in the bilevel ventilation group were not reported. ASV plus best supportive care versus best supportive care in CSA associated with chronic heart failure In the medium term, ASV plus best supportive care may reduce AHI compared to best supportive care alone (MD -20.30, 95% CI -28.75 to -11.85; 1 study; 30 participants). In the long term, ASV plus best supportive care likely increases cardiovascular mortality compared to best supportive care (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 1.04, 1.49; 1 study; 1325 participants). The evidence suggests that ASV plus best supportive care may result in little to no difference in quality of life in the short, medium, and long term, and in all-cause mortality in the medium and long term. Data on adverse events were evaluated but not reported. ASV plus best supportive care versus best supportive care in CSA with acute heart failure with preserved ejection fraction Only adverse events were reported for this comparison, and no adverse events were recorded in either group. ASV versus CPAP maintenance in CPAP-induced CSA In the short term, ASV may slightly reduce central AHI (MD -4.10, 95% CI -6.67 to -1.53; 1 study; 60 participants), but may result in little to no difference in quality of life. Data on adverse events were not reported, and it is not clear whether data were sought but not found. ASV versus bilevel ventilation in CPAP-induced CSA In the short term, ASV may slightly reduce central AHI (MD -8.70, 95% CI -11.42 to -5.98; 1 study; 30 participants) compared to bilevel ventilation. Data on adverse events were not reported, and it is not clear whether data were sought but not found.Authors' ConclusionsCPAP plus best supportive care may reduce central AHI in people with CSA associated with chronic heart failure compared to best supportive care alone. Although ASV plus best supportive care may reduce AHI in people with CSA associated with chronic heart failure, it likely increases cardiovascular mortality in these individuals. In people with CPAP-induced CSA, ASV may slightly reduce central AHI compared to bilevel ventilation and to CPAP. In the absence of data showing a favourable impact on meaningful patient-centred outcomes and defining clinically important differences in outcomes in CSA patients, these findings need to be interpreted with caution. Considering the level of certainty of the available evidence and the heterogeneity of participants with CSA, we could draw no definitive conclusions, and further high-quality trials focusing on patient-centred outcomes, such as quality of life, quality of sleep, and longer-term survival, are needed to determine whether one mode of NIPV is better than another or than best supportive care for any particular CSA patient group.Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

12 keywords...

hide…