Suppression of Central Sleep Apnea by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and Transplant-Free Survival in Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the main analysis of the Canadian Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) for Patients with Central Sleep Apnea (CSA) and Heart Failure Trial (CANPAP), CPAP had no effect on heart transplant-free survival; however, CPAP only reduced the mean apnea-hypopnea index to 19 events per hour of sleep, which remained above the trial inclusion threshold of 15. This stratified analysis of CANPAP tested the hypothesis that suppression of CSA below this threshold by CPAP would improve left ventricular ejection fraction and heart transplant-free survival. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 258 heart failure patients with CSA in CANPAP, 110 of the 130 randomized to the control group and 100 of the 128 randomized to CPAP had sleep studies 3 months later. CPAP patients were divided post hoc into those whose apnea-hypopnea index was or was not reduced below 15 at this time (CPAP-CSA suppressed, n=57, and CPAP-CSA unsuppressed, n=43, respectively). Their changes in left ventricular ejection fraction and heart transplant-free survival were compared with those in the control group. Despite similar CPAP pressure and hours of use in the 2 groups, CPAP-CSA-suppressed subjects experienced a greater increase in left ventricular ejection fraction at 3 months (P=0.001) and significantly better transplant-free survival (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.371 [0.142 to 0.967], P=0.043) than control subjects, whereas the CPAP-CSA-unsuppressed group did not (for left ventricular ejection fraction, P=0.984, and for transplant-free survival, hazard ratio 1.463 [95% confidence interval 0.751 to 2.850], P=0.260). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that in heart failure patients, CPAP might improve both left ventricular ejection fraction and heart transplant-free survival if CSA is suppressed soon after its initiation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".