Upper airway surgery for obstructive sleep apnea reduces blood pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate if upper airway surgery reduces blood pressure in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective series. METHODS: A prospective series of 112 consecutive OSA patients with hypertension (HTN). All patients were > 18 years old, respiratory disturbance index >5, all levels of apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), with a history of HTN treated with medication for at least 6 months. Surgical procedures included septoplasty, turbinate reduction, palate surgery, and tongue base reduction. RESULTS: There were 92 men and 20 women, with a mean age of 48.6 years, mean body mass index (BMI) was 27.5 (range, 19.7-34.7). Mean follow-up was 16.1 months. The mean preoperative AHI was 32.6 (range, 1.2-104), with the mean lowest oxygen saturation (LSAT) of 79.9% (range, 52%-93%). The mean adjusted preoperative and postoperative systolic blood pressure (SBP) was reduced from 146 ± 15.3 mm Hg to 122 ± 12.5 mm Hg (P < .001), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was reduced from 91 ± 10.2 mm Hg to 76 ± 7.8 mm Hg (P < .001). There was a decrease in overall BMI from 27.5 ± 3.6 to 25.5 ± 3.0 (P < .001); however, based on multivariate analysis, the reduction in SBP and DBP was not affected by this BMI reduction. Fifty-eight patients (51.8%) did not require their antihypertensive after surgery. There was poor correlation noted between HTN with AHI, LSAT, and oxygen duration <90%. CONCLUSIONS: Upper airway surgery does reduce SBP and DBP in patients with OSA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 128:523-527, 2018.
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) | 0.002 | 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".