ArticleSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2022
Central sleep apnea treatment in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a network meta-analysis.
Article in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Central sleep apnoea: not just one phenotype.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024Review
- Novel Device Therapies for Heart Failure.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAdaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) is contraindicated for the treatment of central sleep apnea (CSA) 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 conducting this network meta-analysis. We sought to analyze their comparative effectiveness in reducing apnea hypopnea index (AHI). Additionally, we also studied their comparative effectiveness on subjective daytime sleepiness as assessed by Epworth sleepiness score (ESS).
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed were analyzed in a network meta-analysis and relative superiority was computed based on P-score ranking and Hasse diagrams.
resultsNetwork meta-analysis based on 8 RCTs showed that when compared to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT-used as a common comparator across trials), reduction in AHI by ASV (- 26.05 [- 38.80; - 13.31]), TPNS (- 24.90 [- 42.88; - 6.92]), BPAP-BUR (- 20.36 [- 36.47; - 4.25]), and CPAP (- 16.01 [- 25.42; - 6.60]) were statistically significant but not between the interventions. Based on 6 RCTs of all the interventions, only TPNS showed a statistically significant decrease in ESS (- 3.70 (- 5.58; - 1.82)) when compared to GDMT, 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)). Ranking of treatments based on 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.
conclusionsResults indicated relative superiority of TPNS and ASV to BPAP-BUR and CPAP in their effects on AHI and ESS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.