Influence of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Severity on Muscle Sympathetic Nerve Activity and Blood Pressure: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We conducted meta-analyses to identify relationships between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) severity, muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA), and blood pressure (BP). We quantified the effect of OSA treatment on MSNA. Methods: Structured searches of electronic databases were performed until June 2021. All observational designs (except reviews) were included: population (individuals with OSA); exposures (OSA diagnosis and direct measures of MSNA); comparator (individuals without OSA or different severity of OSA); outcomes (MSNA, BP, and heart rate). Results: Fifty-six studies (N=1872) were included. MSNA burst frequency was higher in OSA (27 studies; n=542) versus controls (n=488; mean differences [MDs], +15.95 bursts/min [95% CI, 12.6–17.6 bursts/min]; I2=86%). As was burst incidence (20 studies; n=357 OSA, n=312 Controls; MD, +22.23 bursts/100 hbs [95% CI, 18.49–25.97 bursts/100 hbs]; I2=67%). Meta-regressions indicated relationships between MSNA and OSA severity (burst frequency, R2=0.489; P<0.001; burst incidence, R2=0.573; P<0.001). MSNA burst frequency was related to systolic pressure (R2=0.308;P=0.016). OSA treatment with continuous positive airway pressure reduced MSNA burst frequency (MD, 11.91 bursts/min [95% CI, 9.36–14.47 bursts/min] I2=15%) and systolic (n=49; MD, 10.3 mm Hg [95% CI, 3.5–17.2 mm Hg]; I2=42%) and diastolic (MD, 6.9 mm Hg [95% CI, 2.3–11.6 mm Hg]; I2=37%) BP. Conclusions: MSNA is higher in individuals with OSA and related to severity. This sympathoexcitation is also related to BP in patients with OSA. Treatment effectively reduces MSNA and BP, but limited data prevents an assessment of the link between these reductions. These data are clinically important for understanding cardiovascular disease risk in patients with OSA. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: CRD42021285159.
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 | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".