Comparison of Physiological Performance of Four Adaptive Servo Ventilation Devices in Patients with Complex Sleep Apnea

Adaptive non-invasive ventilation treatment for sleep apnea

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of two non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) modalities to treat sleep apnea: (1) Average Volume Assured Pressure Support (AVAPS) NIV, and (2) Pressure Support (PS) NIV with Continuously Calculated Average Required Ventilation (CCARV). Two detailed (previously developed and tested) simulation models were used to assess the effectiveness of the NIV modalities. One simulated subjects without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and the other simulated patients with COPD. Sleep apnea was simulated in each model (COPD and Non-COPD), and the ability of each NIV modality to normalize breathing was measured. In both NIV modalities, a low level continuous positive airway pressure was used and a backup respiratory rate was added to the algorithm in order to minimize the respiratory work rate. Both modalities could help normalize breathing in response to an episode of sleep apnea within about 5 min (during which time blood gases were within safe limits). AVAPS NIV and PS NIV with CCARV have potential value to be used for treatment of sleep apnea. Clinical evaluations are needed to fully assess the effectiveness of these NIV modalities.

Adaptive servo-ventilation for sleep-disordered breathing in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (ADVENT-HF): a multicentre, multinational, parallel-group, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, sleep-disordered breathing, comprising obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) and central sleep apnoea (CSA), is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and sleep disruption. We hypothesised that treating sleep-disordered breathing with a peak-flow triggered adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) device would improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre, multinational, parallel-group, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial of peak-flow triggered ASV in patients aged 18 years or older with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤45%) who were stabilised on optimal medical therapy with co-existing sleep-disordered breathing (apnoea-hypopnoea index [AHI] ≥15 events/h of sleep), with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessments. The trial was carried out at 49 hospitals in nine countries. Sleep-disordered breathing was stratified into predominantly OSA with an Epworth Sleepiness Scale score of 10 or lower or predominantly CSA. Participants were randomly assigned to standard optimal treatment alone or standard optimal treatment with the addition of ASV (1:1), stratified by study site and sleep apnoea type (ie, CSA or OSA), with permuted blocks of sizes 4 and 6 in random order. Clinical evaluations were performed and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and New York Heart Association class were assessed at months 1, 3, and 6 following randomisation and every 6 months thereafter to a maximum of 5 years. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of the composite of all-cause mortality, first admission to hospital for a cardiovascular reason, new onset atrial fibrillation or flutter, and delivery of an appropriate cardioverter-defibrillator shock. All-cause mortality was a secondary endpoint. Analysis for the primary outcome was done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01128816) and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (ISRCTN67500535), and the trial is complete.

FINDINGS

The first and last enrolments were Sept 22, 2010, and March 20, 2021. Enrolments terminated prematurely due to COVID-19-related restrictions. 1127 patients were screened, of whom 731 (65%) patients were randomly assigned to receive standard care (n=375; mean AHI 42·8 events per h of sleep [SD 20·9]) or standard care plus ASV (n=356; 43·3 events per h of sleep [20·5]). Follow-up of all patients ended at the latest on June 15, 2021, when the trial was terminated prematurely due to a recall of the ASV device due to potential disintegration of the motor sound-abatement material. Over the course of the trial, 41 (6%) of participants withdrew consent and 34 (5%) were lost to follow-up. In the ASV group, the mean AHI decreased to 2·8-3·7 events per h over the course of the trial, with associated improvements in sleep quality assessed 1 month following randomisation. Over a mean follow-up period of 3·6 years (SD 1·6), ASV had no effect on the primary composite outcome (180 events in the control group vs 166 in the ASV group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·95, 95% CI 0·77-1·18; p=0·67) or the secondary endpoint of all-cause mortality (88 deaths in the control group vs. 76 in the ASV group; 0·89, 0·66-1·21; p=0·47). For patients with OSA, the HR for all-cause mortality was 1·00 (0·68-1·46; p=0·98) and for CSA was 0·74 (0·44-1·23; p=0·25). No safety issue related to ASV use was identified.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction and sleep-disordered breathing, ASV had no effect on the primary composite outcome or mortality but eliminated sleep-disordered breathing safely.

FUNDING

Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Philips RS North America.

Adaptive servo-ventilation and mortality in patients with systolic heart failure and central sleep apnea: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Central sleep apnea (CSA) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Treatment of CSA with a certain type of adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) device that targets minute ventilation (ASVmv) was found to be harmful in these patients. A newer generation of ASV devices that target peak flow (ASVpf) is presumed to have different effects on ventilation and airway patency. We analyzed our registry of patients with HFrEF-CSA to examine the effect of exposure to ASV and role of each type of ASV device on mortality.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study in patients with HFrEF and CSA who were treated with ASV devices between 2008 and 2015 at a single institution. Mortality data were collected through the institutional data honest broker. Usage data were obtained from vendors' and manufacturers' servers. Median follow-up was 64 months.

RESULTS

The registry included 90 patients with HFrEF-CSA who were prescribed ASV devices. Applying a 3-h-per-night usage cutoff, we found a survival advantage at 64 months for those who used the ASV device above the cutoff (n = 59; survival 76%) compared to those who did not (n = 31; survival 49%; hazard ratio 0.44; CI 95%, 0.20 to 0.97; P = 0.04). The majority (n = 77) of patients received ASVpf devices with automatically adjusting end-expiratory pressure (EPAP) and the remainder (n = 13) received ASVmv devices mostly with fixed EPAP (n = 12). There was a trend towards a negative correlation between ASVmv with fixed EPAP and survival.

CONCLUSION

In this population of patients with HFrEF and CSA, there was no evidence that usage of ASV devices was associated with increased mortality. However, there was evidence of differential effects of type of ASV technology on mortality.

International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea

BACKGROUND

Evaluation and interpretation of the literature on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) allows for consolidation and determination of the key factors important for clinical management of the adult OSA patient. Toward this goal, an international collaborative of multidisciplinary experts in sleep apnea evaluation and treatment have produced the International Consensus statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (ICS:OSA).

METHODS

Using previously defined methodology, focal topics in OSA were assigned as literature review (LR), evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBR-R) formats. Each topic incorporated the available and relevant evidence which was summarized and graded on study quality. Each topic and section underwent iterative review and the ICS:OSA was created and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICS:OSA addresses OSA syndrome definitions, pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors for disease, screening methods, diagnostic testing types, multiple treatment modalities, and effects of OSA treatment on multiple OSA-associated comorbidities. Specific focus on outcomes with positive airway pressure (PAP) and surgical treatments were evaluated.

CONCLUSION

This review of the literature consolidates the available knowledge and identifies the limitations of the current evidence on OSA. This effort aims to create a resource for OSA evidence-based practice and identify future research needs. Knowledge gaps and research opportunities include improving the metrics of OSA disease, determining the optimal OSA screening paradigms, developing strategies for PAP adherence and longitudinal care, enhancing selection of PAP alternatives and surgery, understanding health risk outcomes, and translating evidence into individualized approaches to therapy.

[Is ASV therapy a positive airway pressure or ventilation therapy? A comparison of acid-base balance per day and under ASV]

The aim of this work was to determine whether therapy with adaptive support ventilation (ASV) leads to impairment of acid-base balance, in particular to hypocapnia and alkalosis. For this purpose, we measured the acid-base status (SBH) with carbon dioxide and oxygen partial pressure in arterialized blood (pCO₂ and pO₂), standard bicarbonate (SBC) and pH under spontaneous breathing during the day and under ASV at night. The trigger for this work was, among other things, the result of the SERVE-HF study, which found an increased risk of mortality in patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction <45% under ASV. There was a presumption of a device algorithm-based effect. The question was whether the minimum pressure support (PSmin) of 3 cmH₂O via respiratory alkalosis has a pro-arrhythmogenic effect (and causes higher mortality). A study of patients with treatment-emergent central sleep apnea (TECSA) and normal cardiac function comparing 4 ASV devices showed significantly higher ventilation with the device used in the study. So, this excessive ventilation could be generated by the device and not by class.

METHODS

A total of 226 patients who came to the follow-up of the ASV from 10/2018 to 03/2020; age 65.2±11.3 years, BMI 35.7±7.5 kg/m², service life 5530±5400 h, 5.6±2.5 h/d, PSmin 4.9±1.8 cmH₂O. None of the patients had heart failure (EF>45%). The majority underwent ASV because of TECSA, rarely a cardiac or other genesis.

RESULTS

In 29 patients (12.8%) hypocapnia with pCO₂ <36 mmHg was found in the morning.

CONCLUSION

Under ASV we could not determine any class effect of hypocapnia. 12.8% had hypocapnia, and in half of the cases it was severe necessitating modification of therapy. This can have different causes but there are no clear criteria. As there is a risk of hyperventilation, acid-base balance under ASV should be checked.

Sleep Apnoea and Heart Failure

Heart Failure (HF) and Sleep-Disordered-Breathing (SDB) are two common conditions that frequently overlap and have been studied extensively in the past three decades. Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) may result in myocardial damage, due to intermittent hypoxia increased sympathetic activity and transmural pressures, low-grade vascular inflammation and oxidative stress. On the other hand, central sleep apnoea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration (CSA-CSR) occurs in HF, irrespective of ejection fraction either reduced (HFrEF), preserved (HFpEF) or mildly reduced (HFmrEF). The pathophysiology of CSA-CSR relies on several mechanisms leading to hyperventilation, breathing cessation and periodic breathing. Pharyngeal collapse may result at least in part from fluid accumulation in the neck, owing to daytime fluid retention and overnight rostral fluid shift from the legs. Although both OSA and CSA-CSR occur in HF, the symptoms are less suggestive than in typical (non-HF related) OSA. Overnight monitoring is mandatory for a proper diagnosis, with accurate measurement and scoring of central and obstructive events, since the management will be different depending on whether the sleep apnea in HF is predominantly OSA or CSA-CSR. SDB in HF are associated with worse prognosis, including higher mortality than in patients with HF but without SDB. However, there is currently no evidence that treating SDB improves clinically important outcomes in patients with HF, such as cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Sleep Disordered Breathing and Cardiovascular Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Sleep disordered breathing causes repetitive episodes of nocturnal hypoxemia, sympathetic nervous activation, and cortical arousal, often associated with excessive daytime sleepiness. Sleep disordered breathing is common in people with, or at risk of, cardiovascular (CV) disease including those who are obese or have hypertension, coronary disease, heart failure, or atrial fibrillation. Current therapy of obstructive sleep apnea includes weight loss (if obese), exercise, and positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. This improves daytime sleepiness. Obstructive sleep apnea is associated with increased CV risk, but treatment with PAP in randomized trials has not been shown to improve CV outcome. Central sleep apnea (CSA) is not usually associated with daytime sleepiness in heart failure or atrial fibrillation and is a marker of increased CV risk, but PAP has been shown to be harmful in 1 randomized trial. The benefits of better phenotyping, targeting of higher-risk patients, and a more personalized approach to therapy are being explored in ongoing trials.

Patterns of adaptive servo-ventilation settings in a real-life multicenter study: pay attention to volume! : Adaptive servo-ventilation settings in real-life conditions

Backgrounds

To explain the excess cardiovascular mortality observed in the SERVE-HF study, it was hypothesized that the high-pressure ASV default settings used lead to inappropriate ventilation, cascading negative consequences (i.e. not only pro-arrythmogenic effects through metabolic/electrolyte abnormalities, but also lower cardiac output). The aims of this study are: i) to describe ASV-settings for long-term ASV-populations in real-life conditions; ii) to describe the associated minute-ventilations (MV) and therapeutic pressures for servo-controlled-flow versus servo-controlled-volume devices (ASV-F Philips®-devices versus ASV-V ResMed®-devices).

Methods

The OTRLASV-study is a cross-sectional, 5-centre study including patients who underwent ASV-treatment for at least 1 year. The eight participating clinicians were free to adjust ASV settings, which were compared among i) initial diagnosed sleep-disordered-breathing (SBD) groups (Obstructive-Sleep-Apnea (OSA), Central-Sleep-Apnea (CSA), Treatment-Emergent-Central-Sleep-Apnea (TECSA)), and ii) unsupervised groups (k-means clusters). To generate these clusters, baseline and follow-up variables were used (age, sex, body mass index (BMI), initial diagnosed Obstructive-Apnea-Index, initial diagnosed Central-Apnea-Index, Continuous-Positive-Airway-Pressure used before ASV treatment, presence of cardiopathy, and presence of a reduced left-ventricular-ejection-fraction (LVEF)). ASV-data were collected using the manufacturer’s software for 6 months.

Results

One hundred seventy-seven patients (87.57% male) were analysed with a median (IQ_25–75) initial Apnea-Hypopnea-Index of 50 (38–62)/h, an ASV-treatment duration of 2.88 (1.76–4.96) years, 61.58% treated with an ASV-V. SDB groups did not differ in ASV settings, MV or therapeutic pressures. In contrast, the five generated k-means clusters did (generally described as follows: (C1) male-TECSA-cardiopathy, (C2) male-mostly-CSA-cardiopathy, (C3) male-mostly-TECSA-no cardiopathy, (C4) female-mostly-elevated BMI-TECSA-cardiopathy, (C5) male-mostly-OSA-low-LVEF). Of note, the male-mostly-OSA-low-LVEF-cluster-5 had significantly lower fixed end-expiratory-airway-pressure (EPAP) settings versus C1 (p = 0.029) and C4 (p = 0.007). Auto-EPAP usage was higher in the male-mostly-TECSA-no cardiopathy-cluster-3 versus C1 (p = 0.006) and C2 (p < 0.001). MV differences between ASV-F (p = 0.002) and ASV-V (p < 0.001) were not homogenously distributed across clusters, suggesting specific cluster and ASV-algorithm interactions. Individual ASV-data suggest that the hyperventilation risk is not related to the cluster nor the ASV-monitoring type.

Conclusions

Real-life ASV settings are associated with combinations of baseline and follow-up variables wherein cardiological variables remain clinically meaningful. At the patient level, a hyperventilation risk exists regardless of cluster or ASV-monitoring type, spotlighting a future role of MV-telemonitoring in the interest of patient-safety.

Trial registration

The OTRLASV study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02429986). 1 April 2015.

Adaptive Servo-Ventilation: A Comprehensive Descriptive Study in the Geneva Lake Area

Background: Use of adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) has been questioned in patients with central sleep apnea (CSA) and chronic heart failure (CHF). This study aims to detail the present use of ASV in clinical practice.

Methods: Descriptive, cross-sectional, multicentric study of patients undergoing long term (≥3 months) ASV in the Cantons of Geneva or Vaud (1,288,378 inhabitants) followed by public or private hospitals, private practitioners and/or home care providers.

Results: Patients included (458) were mostly male (392; 85.6%), overweight [BMI (median, IQR): 29 kg/m² (26; 33)], comorbid, with a median age of 71 years (59–77); 84% had been treated by CPAP before starting ASV. Indications for ASV were: emergent sleep apnea (ESA; 337; 73.6%), central sleep apnea (CSA; 108; 23.6%), obstructive sleep apnea (7; 1.5%), and overlap syndrome (6; 1.3%). Origin of CSA was cardiac (n = 30), neurological (n = 26), idiopathic (n = 28), or drug-related (n = 22). Among CSA cases, 60 (56%) patients had an echocardiography within the preceding 12 months; median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 62.5% (54–65); 11 (18%) had a LVEF ≤45%. Average daily use of ASV was [mean (SD)] 368 (140) min; 13% used their device <3:30 h. Based on ventilator software, apnea-hypopnea index was normalized in 94% of subjects with data available (94% of 428).

Conclusions: Use of ASV has evolved from its original indication (CSA in CHF) to a heterogeneous predominantly male, aged, comorbid, and overweight population with mainly ESA or CSA. CSA in CHF represented only 6.5% of this population. Compliance and correction of respiratory events were satisfactory.

Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04054570.

Central sleep apnoea and periodic breathing in heart failure: prognostic significance and treatment options

Central sleep apnoea (CSA) including periodic breathing is prevalent in more than one-third of patients with heart failure and is highly and independently associated with poor outcomes. Optimal treatment is still debated and well-conducted studies regarding efficacy and impact on outcomes of available treatment options are limited, particularly in cardiac failure with preserved ejection fraction. While continuous positive airway pressure and oxygen reduce breathing disturbances by 50%, adaptive servoventilation (ASV) normalises breathing disturbances by to controlling the underlying mechanism of CSA. Results are contradictory regarding impact of ASV on hard outcomes. Cohorts and registry studies show survival improvement under ASV, while secondary analyses of the large SERVE-HF randomised trial showed an excess mortality in cardiac failure with reduced ejection fraction. The current priority is to understand which phenotypes of cardiac failure patients may benefit from treatment guiding individualised and personalised management.

Unilateral phrenic nerve stimulation in the therapeutical algorithm of central sleep apnoea in heart failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Central sleep apnoea (CSA) is highly prevalent in patients with heart failure and substantially impairs survival. If optimal cardiac treatment fails, alternative therapeutical options, including positive airway pressure (PAP) therapies, drugs or application of oxygen and carbon dioxide are considered to suppress CSA which interfere with the complex underlying pathophysiology. Most recently, unilateral phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) has been studied in these patients. Therefore, there is an urgent need to critically evaluate efficacy, potential harm and positioning of PNS in current treatment algorithms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Data from case series and limited randomized controlled trials demonstrate the feasibility of the invasive approach and acceptable peri-interventional adverse events. PNS reduces CSA by 50%, a figure comparable with continuous PAP or oxygen. However, PNS cannot improve any comorbid upper airways obstruction. A number of fatalities due to malignant cardiac arrhythmias or other cardiac events have been reported, although the association with the therapy is unclear.

SUMMARY

PNS offers an additional option to the therapeutical portfolio. Intervention-related adverse events and noninvasive alternatives need clear discussion with the patient. The excess mortality in the SERVE-HF study has mainly been attributed to sudden cardiac death. Therefore, previous cardiac fatalities under PNS urge close observation in future studies as long-term data are missing.

Diagnosis and management of central sleep apnea syndrome

Introduction: Central sleep apnea (CSA) syndrome has gained a considerable interest in the sleep field within the last 10 years. It is overrepresented in particular subpopulations such as patients with stroke or heart failure. Early detection and diagnosis, as well as appropriate treatment of central breathing disturbances during sleep remain challenging. Areas covered: Based on a systematic review of CSA in adults the clinical evidence and polysomnographic patterns useful for discerning central from obstructive events are discussed. Current therapeutic indications of CSA and perspectives are presented, according to the type of respiratory disturbances during sleep, alterations in blood gases and ventilatory control. Expert opinion: The precise identification of central events during polysomnographic recording is mandatory. Therapeutic choices for CSA depend on the typology of respiratory disturbances observed by polysomnography, changes in blood gases and ventilatory control. In CSA with normocapnia and ventilatory instability, adaptive servo-ventilation is recommended. In CSA with hypercapnia and/or rapid-eye movement sleep hypoventilation, non-invasive ventilation is required. Further studies are required as strong evidence is lacking regarding the long-term consequences of CSA and the long-term impact of current treatment strategies.