Abstract
Purpose: Adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) is contraindicated for central sleep apnea (CSA) treatment in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) limiting treatment options. Though, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), bi-level PAP with back-up rate (BPAP-BUR) and transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation (TPNS) are alternatives, not much is known about their comparative efficacies, which formed the basis of this network meta-analysis, in which their effects on apnea hypopnea index (AHI) and subjective daytime sleepiness (based on Epworth sleepiness score (ESS)), were analyzed.Methods: PubMed was searched for potentially includable randomized controlled trials and network meta-analysis was conducted in R program using package netmeta.Results: Network meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between interventions in AHI reduction. In exploring heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis elicited statistically significant differences in AHI reduction between ASV and TPNS (-18.30 [-27.8; -8.79]), with BPAP-BUR (-21.90 [-30.79; -13.01]) and CPAP (-23.10 [-29.22; -16.98]), favoring ASV. Of all the interventions, only TPNS showed a statistically significant decrease in ESS (-3.70 (-5.58; -1.82)) when compared to guideline directed medical therapy (used as a common comparator across trials), while also showing significant differences when compared with ASV (-3.20 (-5.86; -0.54)), BPAP-BUR (-4.00 (-7.33; -0.68)), and CPAP (-4.45 (-7.75; -1.14)). Hasse diagram, accounting for both AHI and ESS as outcomes for relative hierarchy showed relative superiority of both ASV and TPNS over BPAP-BUR and CPAP.Conclusions: Results indicate relative superiority of TPNS and ASV to BPAP-BUR and CPAP in their effects on AHI and ESS reduction in patients with CSA and HFrEF.
Central sleep apnea: misunderstood and mistreated!
