Sleep Disordered-Breathing and Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB), including obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and central sleep apnea (CSA), is common in older adults and linked to cardiovascular disease. Aortic stenosis (AS), is another prevalent condition in this population. The interaction between SDB and AS remains unclear, particularly regarding outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve implantation. This review systematically examines the prevalence, clinical impact, and potential bidirectional relationship between SDB and AS.Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, multiple databases were searched. Eligible observational studies included adults with both AS and SDB, reporting prevalence or comparative outcomes. Data extraction included study characteristics, diagnostic methods, interventions, and prevalence estimates. Quality assessment employed JBI and Newcastle-Ottawa tools. Metaanalyses were performed using odds ratios (OR), standardized mean differences, and prevalence estimates with random or fixed effects models based on heterogeneity.Results A total of 11 studies met inclusion criteria (9 prevalence-focused, 2 comparative). Pooled prevalence of SDB in AS patients was 76% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63%–89%). Both OSA (49%) and CSA (51%) were observed. Male sex was more common among patients with SDB (OR=1.68, 95% CI: 1.07–2.62). Body mass index (BMI) tended to be higher in OSA than CSA, though not consistently significant. In comparative analyses, patients with SDB showed higher odds of AS (OR=1.16, 95% CI: 1.14–1.17).Conclusions SDB is highly prevalent in AS and may contribute to disease progression. Findings suggest a possible bidirectional association influenced by sex and BMI. Larger wellmatched cohorts with long-term follow-up before and after valve interventions are needed to clarify causality and treatment effects.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".