Chronic Opioid Use and Central Sleep Apnea, Where Are We Now and Where To Go? A State of the Art Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opioids are commonly used for pain management, perioperative procedures, and addiction treatment. There is a current opioid epidemic in North America that is paralleled by a marked increase in related deaths. Since 2000, chronic opioid users have been recognized to have significant central sleep apnea (CSA). After heart failure-related Cheyne-Stokes breathing (CSB), opioid-induced CSA is now the second most commonly seen CSA. It occurs in around 24% of chronic opioid users, typically after opioids have been used for more than 2 months, and usually corresponds in magnitude to opioid dose/plasma concentration. Opioid-induced CSA events often mix with episodes of ataxic breathing. The pathophysiology of opioid-induced CSA is based on dysfunction in respiratory rhythm generation and ventilatory chemoreflexes. Opioids have a paradoxical effect on different brain regions, which result in irregular respiratory rhythm. Regarding ventilatory chemoreflexes, chronic opioid use induces hypoxia that appears to stimulate an augmented hypoxic ventilatory response (high loop gain) and cause a narrow CO2 reserve, a combination that promotes respiratory instability. To date, no direct evidence has shown any major clinical consequence from CSA in chronic opioid users. A line of evidence suggested increased morbidity and mortality in overall chronic opioid users. CSA in chronic opioid users is likely to be a compensatory mechanism to avoid opioid injury and is potentially beneficial. The current treatments of CSA in chronic opioid users mainly focus on continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) or adding oxygen. ASV is more effective in reducing CSA events than CPAP. However, a recent ASV trial suggested an increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality with the removal of CSA/CSB in cardiac failure patients. A major reason could be counteracting of a compensatory mechanism. No similar trial has been conducted for chronic opioid-related CSA. Future studies should focus on (1) investigating the phenotypes and genotypes of opioid-induced CSA that may have different clinical outcomes; (2) determining if CSA in chronic opioid users is beneficial or detrimental; and (3) assessing clinical consequences on different treatment options on opioid-induced CSA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".