Effects of continuous positive airway pressure and isocapnic‐hypoxia on cerebral autoregulation in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key points Altered cerebral autoregulation (CA) in obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) patients may contribute to increased stroke risk in this population; the gold standard treatment for OSA is continuous positive airway pressure, which improves cerebrovascular regulation and may decrease the risk of stroke. Isocapnic‐hypoxia impairs CA in healthy subjects, but it remains unknown in OSA whether impaired CA is further exacerbated by isocapnic‐hypoxia and whether it is improved by treatment with continuous positive airway pressure. During normoxia, CA was altered in the more severe but not in the less severe OSA patients, while, in contrast, during isocapnic‐hypoxia, CA was similar between groups and tended to improve in patients with more severe OSA compared to normoxia. From a clinical perspective, one month of continuous positive airway pressure treatment does not improve CA. From a physiological perspective, this study suggests that sympathetic overactivity may be responsible for altered CA in the more severe OSA patients. Abstract Cerebral autoregulation (CA) impairment may contribute to the increased risk of stroke associated with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). It is unknown if impaired CA is further exacerbated by isocapnic‐hypoxia and whether it is improved by treatment of OSA with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). CA was assessed during wakefulness in 53 OSA patients (50.3 ± 9.3 years) and 21 controls (49.8 ± 8.6 years) at baseline and following a minimum of 1 month of effective CPAP therapy (OSA patients, n = 40). Control participants (n = 21) performed a follow‐up visit to control for time effects within OSA patients between baseline and the post‐CPAP visit. Beat‐by‐beat middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity and mean arterial blood pressure (MBP), and breath‐by‐breath end‐tidal partial pressure of CO2 ( ) were monitored. CA was determined during normoxia and isocapnic‐hypoxia using transfer function (phase and gain) and coherence analysis (including multiple and partial coherence (using MBP and as inputs)) in the very low frequency range (0.03–0.07 Hz). OSA patients were divided into two subgroups (less severe and more severe) based upon the median respiratory disturbance index (RDI). During normoxia, the more severe OSA patients (RDI 45.9 ± 10.3) exhibited altered CA compared to controls and the less severe OSA patients (RDI 24.5 ± 5.9). In contrast, during isocapnic‐hypoxia, CA was similar between groups. CPAP had no effect on CA. In conclusion, CA is altered in the more severe OSA patients during normoxia but not during isocapnic‐hypoxia and CPAP treatment does not impact CA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".