MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413273302 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsag091.0683

0684 Treatment of Central Sleep Apnea in Adults: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline

2025· article· en· W4413273302 on OpenAlexaff
M. Safwan Badr, Rami Khayat, J. Shirine Allam, Suzanne Hyer, Matthew T. Naughton, Susheel P. Patil, Grace W. Pien, Winfried Randerath, Christine Won

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersUniversitätsspital ZürichAmerican Academy of Sleep MedicineWayne State University
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineCentral sleep apneaSleep apneaSleep medicineSleep (system call)Clinical PracticePolysomnographySleep apnea syndromesApneaPhysical therapySleep disorderInternal medicinePsychiatryInsomniaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This guideline establishes clinical practice recommendations for treatment of central sleep apnea (CSA) syndromes in adults. METHODS: The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) commissioned a task force of experts in sleep medicine to develop recommendations and assign strengths based on a systematic review of the literature and an assessment of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. The task force provided a summary of the relevant literature and the certainty of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource use considerations that support the recommendations. The AASM Board of Directors approved the final recommendations. GOOD PRACTICE STATEMENT: The following good practice statement is based on expert consensus, and its implementation is necessary for the appropriate and effective management of patients with CSA. The optimal approach to CSA treatment should incorporate clinical features, comorbid conditions, and polysomnographic findings in an individualized manner. Specifically, clinicians must prioritize optimizing therapy for the conditions contributing to central apneas and improving patient-reported outcomes rather than solely focusing on eliminating disordered breathing events. Once therapy for CSA has been initiated, persistence of central respiratory events should prompt re-evaluation of the underlying risk factors and consideration of alternative treatment options. RECOMMENDATIONS: The following recommendations are intended as a guide for clinicians in choosing a specific treatment for adults with CSA. Each recommendation statement is assigned a strength ("Strong" or "Conditional"). A "Strong" recommendation (ie, "We recommend …") is one that clinicians should follow under most circumstances. A "Conditional" recommendation (ie, "We suggest …") is one that clinicians should offer to most patients if clinically appropriate. Some recommendations include remarks that provide additional context to guide clinicians with the implementation of this recommendation. 1. The AASM suggests using continuous positive airway pressure over no continuous positive airway pressure in adults with CSA due to the following etiologies: primary CSA, CSA due to heart failure, CSA due to medication or substance use, treatment-emergent CSA, and CSA due to a medical condition or disorder. (Conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). over no bilevel positive airway pressure with a backup rate in adults with CSA due to the following etiologies: primary CSA, CSA due to medication or substance use, treatment-emergent CSA, and CSA due to a medical condition or disorder. (Conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). in adults with CSA due to the following etiologies: primary CSA, CSA due to heart failure, CSA due to medication or substance use, treatment-emergent CSA, and CSA due to a medical condition or disorder. (Conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). 4. The AASM suggests using adaptive servo-ventilation over no adaptive servo-ventilation in adults with CSA due to the following etiologies: primary CSA, CSA due to heart failure, CSA due to medication or substance use, treatment-emergent CSA, and CSA due to a medical condition or disorder. (Conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). 5. The AASM suggests using low-flow oxygen over no low-flow oxygen in adults with CSA due to heart failure. (Conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). 6. The AASM suggests using low-flow oxygen over no low-flow oxygen in adults with CSA due to high altitude. (Conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). 7. The AASM suggests using oral acetazolamide over no acetazolamide in adults with CSA due to the following etiologies: primary CSA, CSA due to heart failure, CSA due to medication or substance use, treatment-emergent CSA, and CSA due to a medical condition or disorder. (Conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). 8. The AASM suggests using oral acetazolamide over no acetazolamide in adults with CSA due to high altitude. (Conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). 9. The AASM suggests using transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation over no transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation in adults with CSA due to the following etiologies: primary CSA and CSA due to heart failure. (Conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). CITATION: 2025;21(12):2181-2191.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.399 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207