{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04830053667262969, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01699463327370304, 'mean_word_length': 5.54093567251462, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effect of Flow-Triggered Adaptive Servo-Ventilation Compared With Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Coexisting Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Cheyne-Stokes Respiration

Background—In patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), the presence of sleep-disordered breathing, including either obstructive sleep apnea or Cheyne-Stokes respiration-central sleep apnea, is associated with a poor prognosis. A large-scale clinical trial showed that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) did not improve the prognosis of such patients with CHF, probably because of insufficient sleep-disordered breathing suppression. Recently, it was reported that adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) can effectively treat sleep-disordered breathing. However, there are no specific data about the efficacy of flow-triggered ASV for cardiac function in patients with CHF with sleep-disordered breathing. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of flow-triggered ASV to CPAP in patients with CHF with coexisting obstructive sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration-central sleep apnea. Methods and Results—Thirty-one patients with CHF, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction <50% and New York Heart Association class ≥II, with coexisting obstructive sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration-central sleep apnea, were randomly assigned to either CPAP or flow-triggered ASV. The suppression of respiratory events, changes in cardiac function, and compliance with the devices during the 3-month study period were compared. Although both devices decreased respiratory events, ASV more effectively suppressed respiratory events (&Dgr;AHI [apnea-hypopnea index], −35.4±19.5 with ASV; −23.2±12.0 with CPAP, P<0.05). Compliance was significantly greater with ASV than with CPAP (5.2±0.9 versus 4.4±1.1 h/night, P<0.05). The improvements in quality-of-life and left ventricular ejection fraction were greater in the ASV group (&Dgr;LVEF [left ventricular ejection fraction], +9.1±4.7% versus +1.9±10.9%). Conclusions—These results suggest that patients with coexisting obstructive sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration-central sleep apnea may receive greater benefit from treatment with ASV than with CPAP.