Effect on blood pressure of oral appliance therapy for sleep apnea syndrome
ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of individually prescribed oral appliances for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) on blood pressure, as well as factors influencing the efficacy.
One hundred sixty-one patients (121 men and 40 women, mean age: 54.3 +/- 13.7 years) diagnosed with mild to moderate OSAS (mean apnea-hypopnea index: 17.9 +/- 14.1) were studied before and after insertion of a mandibular advancement device, with a mean interval of 60 days. Systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure was taken using an automatic blood pressure monitor (132.0 +/- 16.1 mmHg, 82.1 +/- 10.6 mmHg, 107.1 +/- 12.9 mmHg, respectively, at baseline).
The patients were subdivided into 3 groups: responder, partial responder, and nonresponder, according to the difference of mean arterial pressure fall after the treatment. The systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure decreased significantly (P < .001) (127.5 +/- 15.0 mmHg, 79.2 +/- 10.0 mmHg, 103.4 +/- 12.0 mmHg, respectively) after the insertion of the device. The oral appliance therapy produced falls in blood pressure (4.5 mmHg, 3.0 mmHg, 3.7 mmHg, respectively). The response was significantly (P < .001) correlated to baseline blood pressure. The responders (n = 70, mean blood pressure fall > 3.7 mmHg) and the partial responders (n=46, 0 < fall < or = 3.7 mmHg) showed significantly (P < .05; analysis of variance) higher reduction in apnea-hypopnea index (69.6%, 65.9%, respectively) than that (52.5%) of nonresponders (n=45, fall < or =0 mmHg).
These data suggest that effective oral appliance therapy for OSAS patients with hypertension can lead to a substantial reduction in daytime blood pressure.
- SourceAvailable from: Smita Musani
Article: Central sleep apnea[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Central sleep apnea (CSA) is characterized by the periodic occurrence of apnea caused by loss of ventilatory motor output. CSA is often discussed as a minor variant of obstructive sleep apnea.However, this view obscures the critical contribution of CSA as an important manifestation of breathing instability in a variety of conditions with diverse causes. Central apnea can also be a physiologic phenomenon in healthy people during sleep onset. Conversely, patients who have obstructive apnea may also develop episodes of apparent central apnea, and apneas that begin as central may become obstructive as respiratory effort is restored ("mixed apneas"). Thus, there is a significant overlap between obstructive and central apnea. This article addresses the pathophysiology, clinical features, and management of normocapnic and hypercapnic CSA.Primary Care Clinics in Office Practice 07/2005; 32(2):361-74, vi. DOI:10.1016/j.pop.2005.02.003 · 0.83 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Between 1982 and 2006, there were 89 distinct publications dealing with oral appliance therapy involving a total of 3,027 patients, which reported results of sleep studies performed with and without the appliance. These studies, which constitute a very heterogeneous group in terms of methodology and patient population, are reviewed and the results summarized. This review focused on the following outcomes: sleep apnea (i.e. reduction in the apnea/hypopnea index or respiratory disturbance index), ability of oral appliances to reduce snoring, effect of oral appliances on daytime function, comparison of oral appliances with other treatments (continuous positive airway pressure and surgery), side effects, dental changes (overbite and overjet), and long-term compliance. We found that the success rate, defined as the ability of the oral appliances to reduce apnea/hypopnea index to less than 10, is 54%. The response rate, defined as at least 50% reduction in the initial apnea/hypopnea index (although it still remained above 10), is 21%. When only the results of randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled studies are considered, the success and response rates are 50% and 14%, respectively. Snoring was reduced by 45%. In the studies comparing oral appliances to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or to uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP), an appliance reduced initial AHI by 42%, CPAP reduced it by 75%, and UPPP by 30%. The majority of patients prefer using oral appliance than CPAP. Use of oral appliances improves daytime function somewhat; the Epworth sleepiness score (ESS) dropped from 11.2 to 7.8 in 854 patients. A summary of the follow-up compliance data shows that at 30 months, 56-68% of patients continue to use oral appliance. Side effects are relatively minor but frequent. The most common ones are excessive salivation and teeth discomfort. Efficacy and side effects depend on the type of appliance, degree of protrusion, vertical opening, and other settings. We conclude that oral appliances, although not as effective as CPAP in reducing sleep apnea, snoring, and improving daytime function, have a definite role in the treatment of snoring and sleep apnea.Sleep And Breathing 04/2007; 11(1):1-22. DOI:10.1007/s11325-006-0084-8 · 2.87 Impact Factor