Title |
All-cause mortality from obstructive sleep apnea in male and female patients with and without continuous positive airway pressure treatment: a registry study with 10 years of follow-up
|
---|---|
Published in |
Nature and science of sleep, April 2015
|
DOI | 10.2147/nss.s75166 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Poul Jennum, Philip Tønnesen, Rikke Ibsen, Jakob Kjellberg |
Abstract |
More information is needed about the effect on mortality of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), especially in women. We employed a historical cohort study design, using data from 25,389 patients with a diagnosis of OSA selected from the Danish National Patient Registry for the period 1999-2009. We used Cox proportional hazard function to evaluate the all-cause mortality from OSA in middle-aged and elderly males and females who were treated, or not, with CPAP. Female OSA patients had a lower mortality than males, irrespective of whether they received CPAP treatment. CPAP treatment improved survival, as illustrated by the hazard ratio of 0.62 (P<0.001). This effect was dependent on gender: CPAP had no significant effect on 20- to 39-year-old males and females, but the overall mortality in this age group was small. Survival was increased by CPAP in 40- to 59-year-old and ≥60-year-old males, but no such effect was observed in females. Positive predictors of survival were young age, female gender, higher educational level, and low 3-year prior comorbidity as estimated by the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Negative predictors for survival were male gender, age ≥60 years, no CPAP treatment, prior comorbidity, and low educational level. CPAP therapy is associated with reduced all-cause mortality in middle-aged and elderly males, but no significant effect was found in females. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 50% |
Australia | 1 | 25% |
Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 2 | 50% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Denmark | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 50 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
Other | 6 | 12% |
Researcher | 5 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
Other | 13 | 25% |
Unknown | 12 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 53% |
Psychology | 3 | 6% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
Engineering | 2 | 4% |
Other | 2 | 4% |
Unknown | 13 | 25% |