Heart failure and sleep-disordered breathing: mechanisms, consequences and treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review examines the recently published articles pertaining to sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) and heart failure. RECENT FINDINGS: The recent findings can be classified into pulmonary, upper airway and treatment trials. Pulmonary complications of heart failure include loss of surfactant, increased pulmonary dry weight and reduced lung volume, which are likely to increase plant gain and thus predispose to central sleep apnea with Cheyne-Stokes respiration. Upper airway narrowing in normal individuals has been shown to occur with lower limb compression and the supine body position, thus suggesting that rostral fluid shifts may narrow the upper airway and aggravate obstructive sleep apnea. Extrapolating this to congestive heart failure (CHF), it is possible that CHF fluid status may impact upon obstructive sleep apnea severity. Following the Canadian Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Patients with Central Sleep Apnoea and Heart Failure trial, further SDB intervention studies have been reported using adaptive servo-ventilation. Although encouraging, small, short-term studies are discussed, however long-term randomized trials with objective cardiac outcomes are still lacking. SUMMARY: The relationship between CHF and SDB is likely to be bidirectional, CHF impacting on SDB severity and vice versa. Identification of SDB in the CHF population appears to be important as it is probably associated with greater mortality, but whether SDB intervention significantly influences CHF survival still remains to be determined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".