Effects of continuous positive airway pressure on blood pressure in hypertensive patients with obstructive sleep apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Several studies have reported a small yet significant decrease in blood pressure (BP) with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) application in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). We investigated the long-term efficiency of CPAP in the management of hypertensive patients with OSA on top of conventional antihypertensive medication. METHODS: We followed 91 nonsleepy patients (aged 54 ± 9 years, 69 men) with essential hypertension and newly diagnosed moderate-to-severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index, 38 ± 24 events/h on polysomnography) for a mean period of 3.1 years, after switching them to antihypertensive treatment targeting office BP less than 140/90 mmHg (<130/80 mmHg in diabetic patients). Participants were defined as on-CPAP if they adhered to CPAP treatment during the whole follow-up period (N = 41), whereas those that did not follow CPAP therapy served as controls (N = 50). RESULTS: By the end of follow-up, on-CPAP patients and controls exhibited similar SBP and DBP levels (133 ± 12 versus 133 ± 13 mmHg, 84 ± 9 versus 85 ± 9 mmHg, respectively, P > 0.05 for all), number of patients with controlled hypertension (71 versus 70%, P > 0.05), and number of antihypertensive drugs needed to achieve BP control (2.28 ± 1.09 versus 2.11 ± 0.72, P > 0.05). In a subgroup of patients (N = 34) in whom ambulatory BP monitoring was also performed, 24-h BP levels did not differ between the two groups (125 ± 10/76 ± 7 mmHg versus 123 ± 11/75 ± 10 mmHg, P > 0.05). In multiple regression models, CPAP application was not associated with changes in BP levels. CONCLUSION: In nonsleepy, hypertensive, OSA patients on conventional antihypertensive treatment, long-term CPAP application is not associated with lower BP levels or a need for less antihypertensive drugs for BP control.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".