Sleep disordered breathing in older adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Sleep disordered breathing in older adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Geriatric Nursing xx (2017) 1e7 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Geriatric Nursing journal homepage: www.gnjournal.com Feature Article Sl...

312KB Sizes 0 Downloads 60 Views

Geriatric Nursing xx (2017) 1e7

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geriatric Nursing journal homepage: www.gnjournal.com

Feature Article

Sleep disordered breathing in older adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction Lynn M. Baniak, PhD, RN *, Eileen R. Chasens, PhD, RN, FAAN University of Pittsburgh, School of Nursing, 3500 Victoria St., Victoria Building, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 27 March 2017 Received in revised form 28 June 2017 Accepted 1 July 2017 Available online xxx

Heart failure in older adults is frequently accompanied by sleep disordered breathing (SDB). Treatment of SDB in persons with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unclear because most data is on heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The purpose of this paper was to evaluate studies that report on the effects of positive airway pressure on patient outcomes in older adults with HFpEF and comorbid SDB. A search of the literature found six data-based studies (N ¼ 36 to 126). Treatment with positive airway pressure reduced nighttime SDB symptoms and improved daytime functional status in persons with HFPEF and SDB (New York Heart Association Functional Class: effect sizes ¼ 0.67 to 1.60). Limitations (i.e. only two studies were randomized controlled trials, small sample sizes, and women were under-represented) suggest that additional evidence is needed to guide treatment of SDB in older adults with HFpEF. Ó 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Heart failure Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction Sleep-disordered breathing Sleep apnea syndrome Adaptive servo-ventilation Positive airway pressure

Introduction According to the American Heart Association, in 2014 over 6.5 million adults in the U.S. had heart failure. The prevalence of heart failure is expected to increase by 46% by 2030 to over 8 million.1 Heart failure is associated with significant decreases to healthrelated quality of life (HRQoL), daytime dysfunction, fatigue, dyspnea, and increased mortality.2 The total cost of heart failure in 2012 was estimated as almost 31 billion dollars; this cost is projected to increase to 70 billion dollars by 2030.3 Although cardiac disease is not part of healthy aging, older adults have a disproportionate risk. The prevalence of heart failure is less than 2% of adults under 60 years old, it increases to 6% in the 60 to 79 yearold age group and is greater than 13% in persons over 80 years old.1

Conflicts of interest: none. This research was supported by the T32, Technology: Research in Chronic and Critical Illness (2T32 NR008857) at the University of Pittsburgh, School of Nursing (L. Baniak). This research was supported by the NINR: K24 NR016685 (E. Chasens). * Corresponding author. 3500 Victoria St., Victoria Bldg 363A, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, United States. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L.M. Baniak), [email protected] (E.R. Chasens). 0197-4572/$ e see front matter Ó 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2017.07.001

Heart failure is characterized as either heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]  40%) or as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF; LVEF  50%).4 Half of all patients with heart failure present with a preserved LVEF1; these patients have a unique phenotype from HFrEF. Patients with HFpEF are frequently older (often in the 8th decade of life), more likely to be female, without a myocardial infarction, and have a history of hypertension, coronary artery disease, obesity compared to patients with HFrEF.1,5e7 The prevalence of HFpEF relative to HFrEF is increasing at a rate of 1% per year and may become the predominant form of heart failure in the developed world.2 Unlike HFrEF, there are no established therapies to improve mortality and morbidity in patients with HFpEF.8 There are differences in the etiology of morbidity and mortality between HFrEF and HFpEF, with morbidity in HFpEF influenced more by non-heart failure related conditions.2,9 Thus, therapy in HFpEF is aimed at treating the more prevalent comorbidities that coexist in persons with HFpEF in order to reduce symptom burden and to improve HRQoL.2 Sleep disordered breathing (SDB) is a highly prevalent comorbidity in adults with HFpEF, estimated to range from 50% to over 80% when compared to persons who have no history of heart failure.10e14 According to the American Academy of Sleep,15 SDB refers to a number of breathing disruptions that occur during sleep that include:

2

L.M. Baniak, E.R. Chasens / Geriatric Nursing xx (2017) 1e7

 obstructive apneas (cessation of airflow for 10 s or longer because of an obstruction in airflow in the upper pharynx with continued respiratory effort)  hypopneas (a decrease in airflow by 50% from baseline accompanied by a decrease of 3% in oxygen saturation),  central apneas (absence of a central nervous system signal to breath with a cessation in breathing for at least 10 s)  mixed apneas (an apnea that starts as an obstructive event but converts to a central apnea, or vice versa), and  Cheyne-Stokes respirations (a cyclic pattern of waxing and waning airflow with respirations). Data from previous research suggests that SDB results in sympathetic activation, sleep fragmentation, and intermittent hypoxia that is associated with a variety of adverse consequences in older adults including excessive daytime sleepiness,16 depression,16 cognitive decline,17,18 reduced functional status,19 cardiovascular disease,20,21 and increased mortality.21 In patients with heart failure, the choice of treatment for SDB depends on the severity and type of breathing disturbance, symptom presentation (i.e. presence of snoring or excessive daytime sleepiness), and the type of cardiovascular disease present.22e24 Positive airway pressure (e.g., continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP], bi-level positive airway pressure [bi-PAP], or adaptive servoventilation [ASV]) is the mainstay treatment of SDB.22 CPAP involves wearing a mask that delivers a steady stream of air to prevent airway collapse and obstructive apneas. Unlike CPAP, Bi-PAP machines have two pressure settings with a higher pressure for inhalation and a lower pressure for exhalation. Bi-PAP is useful for patients who find it difficult to exhale against positive pressure, require a high positive pressure setting to prevent airway obstruction, require oxygen, have a neuro-muscular disorder, or who have HFrEF. ASV is a further refinement as a type of positive airway pressure that uses an algorithm based on the detection of apneas to the level of pressure required to maintain respiration with inspiratory support to treat central apneas.25,26 ASV is used for patients with more complex SDB consisting with mixed obstructive and central apneas and Cheyne-Stokes respirations. While the prevalence of SDB is similar between the populations of HFrEF and HFpEF, whether the predominant type of sleep apnea (e.g. obstructive versus central sleep apnea) is similar remains unclear.14,27 Central sleep apnea is more common in persons with heart failure compared to the general population.12 The prevalence of central sleep apneas has been shown to increase significantly (p < .05) with increasing heart failure severity.27,28 In general, patients with HFpEF tend to have more obstructive apneas in comparison with patients with HFrEF.14 In a prospective study of both HFpEF and HFrEF, OSA was the predominant type of SDB in the HFpEF patients (62%) but not in HFrEF patients.14 A larger study of 244 persons with only HFpEF also found more OSA (40%) versus central sleep apnea (30%) in those identified with SDB.27 However, several studies suggest that the pattern of central apneas, CheyneStokes respirations, obstructive apneas, and hypopneas changes on a night-to-night basis further complicating the delineation of SDB between persons with HFrEF and HFpEF as well as the management of SDB in each population.26,29 A growing body of evidence over the past decade supports positive airway pressure (e.g., CPAP, bi-PAP, or ASV) as effective methods to treat SDB with demonstrated improvements to nocturnal respiratory function and daytime sleepiness.30e32 The impact of positive airway pressure on cardiac function and mortality is less clear.30e33 For example, the Sleep Apnea Cardiovascular Endpoints (SAVE) study.33 was a randomized control trial to evaluate the effectiveness of CPAP in reducing adverse cardiovascular

events among patients with cardiovascular disease and comorbid moderate-to-severe OSA (apnea þ hypopnea index [AHI]  15).33 Those patients randomized to CPAP (n ¼ 1346) had significant improvements in daytime sleepiness, respiratory function, and quality of life measures but not in mortality or the recurrence of myocardial infarction when compared to the usual-care group (n ¼ 1341). Additionally, adverse results occurred in a second study the Treatment of Sleep-Disordered Breathing with Predominant Central Sleep Apnea by Adaptive Servo-Ventilation in Patients with Heart Failure (SERVE-HF).25 The SERVE-HF study, a large randomized controlled trial (N ¼ 1325) of subjects with HFrEF (LVEF  45%) and comorbid moderate-to-severe central sleep apnea (AHI  15), prompted healthcare professionals to question the safety of using ASV in persons with heart failure. The SERVE-HF trial was prematurely stopped because of a statistically significant increase in the primary end-point of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular deaths in those participants randomized to ASV (p < .01). Although the results from the SERVE-HF study cannot be generalized to persons with HFpEF, both the SAVE and SERVE-HF trials have rendered the treatment of SDB among heart failure patients a controversial topic regardless of treatment type. While the negative prognostic impact of HFpEF is similar to that of HFrEF,34 each type of heart failure represents a different clinical syndrome that should be studied and treated separately.35 Important differences exist between HFpEF and HFrEF with respect to the extent of myocardial dysfunction, patterns of cardiac remodeling in heart chambers, and in the response to therapeutic interventions.35 Additionally, OSA in older adults greater than 65 years has a distinctly different physiological phenotype in old versus young individuals.36 As a result of these differences, outcomes during positive airway pressure therapy in patients with HFpEF, typically persons greater than 65 years with comorbid SDB, would be expected to be different from the samples in both the SERVE-HF and SAVE trials. Previous studies on the treatment of SDB in adults with heart failure have historically focused on middle aged adults, featured samples for which the type of heart failure was not identified, or where the majority of the participants had symptoms suggestive of HFrEF. Therefore, the effect of positive airway therapy on patientcentered and clinical outcomes in older adults with HFpEF is poorly understood. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the studies that report on the effects of positive airway pressure on patient-centered and clinical outcomes in older adults with HFpEF and comorbid SDB. Methods Search and data abstraction In June 2017, a systematic all-field and no-date-limit literature search using PubMed, OVID, and Web of Science was conducted. Two investigators, working independently, used the following combination of search terms: sleep apnea, or sleep apneadobstructive, or sleep apneadcentral, or sleep apneadmixed; AND continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, or adaptive servo ventilation, or ASV, or bi-level positive airway pressure, or BiPAP; AND heart failure, or heart failureddiastolic, or heart failuredpreserved ejection fraction, or HFpEF. The identified articles were analyzed using the protocol below. The search identified 279 publications (i.e., articles in peerreviewed journals); 71 were excluded from further analysis because they were written in languages other than English or were not data-based research articles. The titles and abstracts of the

L.M. Baniak, E.R. Chasens / Geriatric Nursing xx (2017) 1e7

remaining 208 articles were screened to determine whether or not the associated full-text articles would be analyzed (Fig. 1). Onehundred thirty four publications were excluded for further analysis because the abstracts either did not mention heart failure participants, or lacked content relevant to our topic. This yielded 74 publications that qualified for our full-text review. Following this full-text review, 68 articles were excluded because (1) no delineation was made between the HFrEF and the HFpEF participants or the sample comprised a majority of adults with HFrEF, and/or (2) the study reported did not feature a positive airway pressure intervention for the treatment of sleep apnea in the participants with co-existing HFpEF and SDB. As a result of this search protocol, six articles were evaluated. A common outcome in four of the studies, the New York Heart Association Functional Class, was used to determine the effect of SDB treatment. A standardized effect size for each study was calculated by subtracting the average pre-treatment functional class from the average post-intervention functional class and then dividing the difference by the standard deviation of the pretreatment functional class.37 The relative magnitude of change was based on Cohen’s definitions of a small (0.2), moderate (0.5), and large (>0.8) effect size.38

Results Design and samples The six studies that examined the effect of treatment of sleep apnea in adults with HFpEF with positive airway pressure are described in Table 1.39e43 Four of these studies.39,40,42,43 had a prospective observational design.39,40,42 and two were randomized controlled trials with a control group that received usual care (i.e. cardiac medications).41,44 Four studies included a homogenous sample of participants with HFpEF.39,41e43 while two studies included a mixed sample of participants with either HFrEF or HFpEF.41,44 The majority (56%) of the sample in the Oldenburg

Potentially relevant articles yielded from search terms in multiple databases, N = 279 PubMed = 79 Web of Science = 170 Ovid = 30

Excluded non-English, duplicates, reviews (n = 71)

Articles retrieved for title and abstract review (n = 208)

Excluded articles (n= 134) with no relevance to primary research questions or samples not consisting of an HF diagnosis (n = 134) Articles retrieved for full text review (n = 74)

Excluded articles (n = 68) based on: Samples not consisting of a majority of HFpEF or No intervention with PAP

References selected for final analysis (n = 6)

Fig. 1. Results of systematic review process.

3

study.41 were diagnosed with HFpEF while in O’Connor study.44 only 19% (n ¼ 24) of the sample had HFpEF, although subgroup analyses were completed within this population. The studies were conducted by four independent groups of investigators: two groups in Japan,41e43 one in Germany,39,40 and one multicenter study that included investigators from both Germany and United States.44 The six studies recruited convenience samples from clinical populations that were small-to-modest in size; the smallest study included 36 participants and the largest study included 126. Effect of positive airway pressure on outcomes in persons with HFpEF and comorbid SDB Bitter et al. examined persons with stable HFpEF (NYHA classes IIeIII) and primarily central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration (i.e., a ratio of central to obstructive apneas > 50%).39 All participants (N ¼ 60) were offered ASV. Assessments were made between the treatment group (n ¼ 39) and a non-equivalent comparison group (n ¼ 21) of participants who either refused or could not tolerate treatment. Significant improvements were observed in cardiopulmonary exercise testing, NYHA class, and cardiac function among the participants of the ASV treatment group (mean follow up 11.6  3 months; all p-values < .01) compared to the untreated comparison group. A study by Oldenburg et al.40 screened 45 consecutive patients with heart failure (HFrEF or HFpEF) and moderate-to-severe SDB (either central or mixed sleep apneas) to reveal the long-term (i.e., 3.6  1.2 months) effects of a tri-level ASV device on cardiac function.40 Only 38 patients were successfully titrated to tri-level ASV. On follow-up (3.6  1.2 months) those patients (n ¼ 23) adherent to ASV (mean ASV use of 4 h per night for  5 days a week) exhibited significant improvements in AHI, NYHA class functional class, and in cardiopulmonary exercise testing (all p-values < .01). Yoshihisa et al. (2013) conducted a small (N ¼ 36) experimental study of adults with HFpEF and SDB (AHI > 15) randomly assigned to either an ASV group or a medication only group.41 Compared to the medication only group, the ASV group had significant improvements (all p values < .05) to AHI, NYHA functional class, and cardiac function after 6 months.41 A Kaplan-Meier analysis found that persons in the ASV group had a lower event-free rate for cardiac events (i.e., cardiac deaths or hospitalizations; p < .05) after one year. The Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed that only ASV was an independent predictor of cardiac events in HFpEF and SDB (HF ¼ 0.576, 95% CI 0.183, 0.799; p ¼ .0164). Yoshihisa et al. (2015) reported a larger observational study (N ¼ 109) of persons with HFpEF and moderate to severe SDB.42 Treatment devices were distributed according to the dominant type of sleep apnea: CPAP for OSA-patients and ASV to central sleep apnea-Cheyne Stokes Respiration each representing approximately 50% of the sample. While all participants were offered treatment, comparisons were made between those who accepted the positive airway pressure treatment (n ¼ 31) and those participants who refused or were intolerant of the device (n ¼ 78). The intervention group exhibited statistically significant improvements (i.e., all p values  0.05) in NYHA functional class, cardiac function, and cardiopulmonary exercise tests after 6 months, compared to the control group.42 Long-term cardiac and all-cause mortality were lower in the positive airway pressure group than in the control group, as demonstrated by Kaplan-Meier analysis (p < .05). Arikawa et al. (2016) was a small observational study (N ¼ 58) of patients with new-onset HFpEF (66  15 years) to examine the effect of treatment of SDB on plasma brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels, a marker for heart failure severity, during a 36 month

4

Table 1 Key characteristics of studies on treatment of sleep disordered breathing in adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Sample size

Study design

Sample

Mean age (years)

% Women, % HFpEF

PAP Device/comparison group

Study duration

Therapeutic benefits

Bitter, Germany 2010

N ¼ 60

Observational Prospective

Type of HF: HFpEF class II e III, LVEF  50% Type of SDB: Moderate to Severe, AHI >15/h with CSR

69  8

15, 100%

ASV (n ¼ 39)/Comparison (rejected treatment, stopped treatment, or noncompliant; n ¼ 21)

11.6  3 months

Oldenburg, Germany, 2013

N ¼ 45

Observational Prospective

71  10

9, 56%

ASV (N ¼ 38)/No comparison

3.6  1.2 months

Yoshihisa, Japan, 2013

N ¼ 36

Randomized control trial.

Type of HF: Both HFpEF and HFrEF, LVEF 50% Type of SDB: Moderate to Severe, AHI 15/h with Central and Mixed apneas Type of HF: HFpEF (LVEF > 50%) Type of SDB: Moderate to Severe, AHI >15/h with OSA and CSR-CSA

64  14

19, 100%

ASV (n ¼ 18)/Comparison (Usual care; n ¼ 18)

6 months, long term follow up

Yoshihisa, Japan, 2015

N ¼ 109

Observational Prospective

Type of HF: HFpEF (LVEF > 50%) Type of SDB: AHI 15/h with OSA, CSA, or Mixed

68  13

37, 100%

CPAP & ASV (n ¼ 31)/Comparison (Usual care; n ¼ 78)

6 months, long term follow up

Arikawa, Japan, 2016

N ¼ 58

Observational Prospective

Type of HF: HFpEF (LVEF  50%) Type of SDB: Mild to severe, AHI  5, OSA

65  15

41%, 100%

CPAP (n ¼ 39)/Comparison (non-OSA; n ¼ 19)

36 months

O’Connor, Germany and United States 2017

N ¼ 126

Randomized, control trial, prospective, multicenter

Type of HF: Both HFrEF (LVEF  45%) and HFpEF (LVEF > 45%) Type of SDB: Moderate to Severe, AHI 15, CSA, OSA, and mixed

62  14

32, 19%

ASV (n ¼ 65)/Comparison (usual care; n ¼ 61)

6 months

Improved respiratory function (AHI longest apnea and hypopnea length, maximum and mean oxygen desaturation, percentage of study time with an oxygen saturation of <90%), functional capacity (cardiopulmonary exercise testing), cardiac function (echocardiography measure), and NYHA functional class (ES ¼ 0.67); all p- values < 0.05. Improved NYHA functional class (ES ¼ 0.80), exercise tolerance and oxygen uptake via cardiopulmonary exercise test, and AHI. Improved cardiac diastolic function, arterial stiffness, NYHA Functional class (ES ¼ 1.60), and decrease in cardiac death and hospitalizations due to cardiac disease, all p-values < 0.05. Improved, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, % vital capacity, peak oxygen uptake, NYHA Functional class (ES ¼ 1.60), and a reduced cardiac and all-cause mortality, all p- values < 0.05. BNP levels were higher in those with OSA þ CPAP vs comparison group at: 6 months [221 (137e324) vs 76 (38e96) pg/ml, p < .05], 12 months [123 (98e197) vs 52 (38e76) pg/ml, p < .05] and 36 months [115 (64e174) vs 56 (25e74) pg/ml, p < .05] Enrollment stopped early (126 of 215 planned) following the release of the SERVE-HF results, limiting statistical power. Improvements to AHI only. Subgroup analysis with HFpEF suggested significant positive effect on a composite global rank score (hierarchy of death, cardiovascular hospitalizations, and percent changes in 6-min walk distance) at 6 months (p ¼ 0.036).

Note: AHI ¼ apnea/hypopnea index, ASV ¼ adaptive servo-ventilation, BNP ¼ Plasma Brain Natriuretic Peptide, CPAP ¼ continuous positive airway pressure, CSA ¼ central sleep apnea, CSR ¼ Cheyne-Stokes Respirations, ES ¼ Effect Size, HF ¼ Heart Failure, HFpEF ¼ heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, HFrEF ¼ heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, LVEF ¼ left ventricular ejection fraction, OSA ¼ obstructive sleep apnea, PAP ¼ positive airway pressure, SDB ¼ sleep disordered breathing.

L.M. Baniak, E.R. Chasens / Geriatric Nursing xx (2017) 1e7

1st author, county, year

L.M. Baniak, E.R. Chasens / Geriatric Nursing xx (2017) 1e7

follow-up.43 Presence of SDB was determined after enrollment into the study and all patients with OSA (n ¼ 39) were treated with CPAP, as well as with lifestyle modifications. Comparisons were made between those HFpEF patients without OSA (n ¼ 19) and those HFpEF patients with OSA. Both groups received usual care for heart failure management. BNP levels reduced in both groups over time, however, the reductions were less evident in the OSA group at each time point. The OSA group had higher BNP levels at six months (221 vs 76 pg/ml, 12 months (123 vs 52 pg/ml, and at 36 months (115 vs 56 pg/ml); all p-values < 0.05.43 Most recently, O’Connor et al. (2017) described results from the Cardiovascular Improvements with Minute Ventilation-targeted ASV Therapy in Heart Failure (CAT-HF) study,44 a randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate the effect of ASV in hospitalized patients with heart failure. The primary endpoint was a composite global rank endpoint of survival, CV hospitalization, and functional capacity measured by 6-min walk distance. The study proposed randomized 215 subjects with heart failure; however only 126 participants were randomized in this study before it was the trial was terminated because of release of data suggesting higher mortality in the SERVE-HF study. Preliminary data from the CAT-HF study suggested that SDB was effectively and safely treated by ASV (AHI decreased from 35.7/h to 2.1/h) in a HF population that included both HFrEF and HFpEF. Data collected prior to study termination did not find that use of ASV resulted in an improvement in cardiac status. A limitation of this study was that average adherence to ASV was very low (2.7 h/night), limiting the ability to determine the effect of ASV on cardiac function. Despite this, a subgroup analysis of participants with HFpEF (n ¼ 24) showed a positive effect of ASV on the composite global rank score (hierarchy of death, cardiovascular hospitalizations, and percent changes in 6min walk distance) at 6 months (p ¼ .036).44

Effect of positive airway pressure treatment pre-and postintervention on NYHA functional class Although the type of intervention device varied, the NYHA functional class was a common metric used in four of the studies.39e42 Overall, NYHA functional class improved from preintervention to post-intervention with the use of positive airway pressure treatment (see Table 2). More specifically, treatment of SDB with positive airway pressure was associated with moderate to

Table 2 Effect of positive airway pressure on the New York Heart Association functional class. Group

M

Bitter Pre 2.4 Post 2.0 Oldenburg Pre 2.4 Post 2.0 Yoshihisa, 2013 Pre 2.3 Post 1.5 Yoshihisa, 2015 Pre 2.4 Post 1.6

SD

Mean Difference

Effect Size

95% CI Lower

Upper

0.6 0.8

0.40

0.67

1.12

0.21

0.5 0.4

0.40

0.80

1.40

0.20

0.5 0.5

0.80

1.60

2.35

0.85

0.5 0.5

0.80

1.60

2.07

1.13

Note. Standardized effect size of treatment on the New York Health Association (NYHA) functional class for each study was based on the change score between preintervention and post-intervention divided by the standard deviation at preintervention (Becker, 1988). M ¼ mean; SD ¼ standard deviation; CI ¼ confidence interval.

5

large improvements in the NYHA functional class with effect sizes that ranged from 0.67 to 1.6. Discussion This review of studies suggests that treatment of SDB in patients with HFpEF may result in improved nighttime sleep and daytime function that included statistically significant improvements in cardiac function, especially among those participants who were adherent to positive airway pressure treatment (e.g. CPAP or ASV) for more than 4 h each night.39,41,42 In addition, treatment of SDB with positive airway pressure resulted in improved exercise tolerance.39,40,42 and reduced cardiac complications resulting in hospitalizations and/or mortality.41,42,44 The significant improvement in NYHA class, an outcome in four of the studies, suggests treatment of SDB results in better overall functional status in persons with HFpEF. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because of the conflicting evidence between previous studies in patients with HFrEF and because of the quality of the studies reviewed. Quality appraisal of each study All of the studies had risks of bias that threatened their validity including non-experimental designs,39,40,42,43 small sample sizes,41 use of non-equivalent comparison groups,39,42,43 and attrition (40%).40 The use of a one group pretest/posttest analysis in the study by Oldenburg et al. (2013) raises the possibility of rival hypotheses that account for the improvement in functional and cardiac status. None of the studies qualified as a superiority RCT that featured a comparative analysis between different types of positive airway pressure devices. Moreover, none of the studies reported use of a power analysis to determine sample size except for the study by O’Conner44; however, this study was terminated when only half the needed sample was recruited. Five studies had similar eligibility criteria: a diagnosis of HFpEF and moderate-to-severe SDB (mean apnea þ hypopnea per hour sleep [AHI]  15/h).39e42,44 while one study.43 included patients with HFpEF without SDB as an part of the inclusion criteria. A standard HFpEF diagnosis according to European Society of Cardiology guidelines was used in the two studies that were conducted in Germany,39,40 while the three studies from Japan.41e43 utilized the Framingham Criteria for Congestive Heart Failure with a LVEF 50%. The study by O’Connor used an LVEF >45% to identify HFpEF in hospitalized patients admitted for acute decompensated heart failure. In all studies, SDB was diagnosed by an objective sleep study device using modified American Academy of Sleep Medicine guidelines. In-laboratory polysomnography was used in all but two studies; the study by O’Connor and colleagues44 utilized a fourchannel type III home sleep study device while the study by Arikawa and colleagues used a two stage screening process, first with evaluation of nocturnal desaturations with pulse oximetry and then use of portable polysomnography with EEG monitoring to assess for OSA while the patient was hospitalized with new-onset heart failure. Additional threats to validity include the low number of female participants and the lack of data on positive airway pressure device adherence. Positive airway pressure device adherence is especially relevant in Arikawa et al. who concluded that “appropriately” treated OSA may worsen long-term cardiac function in persons with HFpEF, although CPAP adherence was not reported.43 There was no one consistent intervention (CPAP, ASV and tri-level ASV) for all of the studies precluding direct comparison of the impact of treatment on outcomes. Even though all of the studies used cardiac measures as their main outcomes, none had patient-oriented

6

L.M. Baniak, E.R. Chasens / Geriatric Nursing xx (2017) 1e7

outcomes as endpoints other than the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class in four of the studies.39e42 The NYHA functional class is a useful clinical tool for determining the eligibility of patients for certain medical services and informing therapeutic management. However, the NYHA classification does not fully explain patient-oriented outcomes or health-related quality of life. Limitations of the review While there are numerous studies that examine treatment of SDB in unspecified heart failure or in samples with HFrEF, a limitation of this review was the limited number of data-based studies on the effect of treatment of SDB in persons with HFpEF and that only two studies had an experimental design. In addition, studies that were non-English, in the grey-literature (i.e. abstracts to conferences), or not published because of publication bias to nonstatistically significant findings were not accessed. Conclusions and recommendations In conclusion, the five out of six studies reviewed suggest that treatment of SDB in older adults with HFpEF may have positive effects on cardiac function that may result in decreased cardiac events and hospitalizations. However, minimal evidence exists from randomized clinical trials with HFpEF samples to guide practice regarding appropriate treatment of SDB within this population. Effective management of SDB is especially important because HFpEF is rapidly becoming the predominant form of heart failure among older adults, and complex SDB is highly prevalent in this population.26 Effective treatment of SDB is difficult concerning the choice of which type of positive airway pressure device to use. The different type of device appears to have different effectiveness and consequences depending on type of heart failure and type of SDB. According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM), CPAP is indicated for treatment of obstructive apneas in patients with either HFrEF or HFpEF. Treatment of central apneas or CheyneStokes respirations requires use of Bi-PAP or ASV. The updated 2016 AASM guidelines do not recommend ASV therapy in persons with HFrEF (LVEF  45%) and moderate to severe SDB with predominantly central sleep apneas. However, the guidelines state that ASV can be used in those persons with HFpEF, mild sleepdisordered breathing, or those with OSA predominant SDB (including both HFrEF and HFpEF).24 Until the mechanism behind the increased mortality observed in the SERVE-HF trial is determined, treatment with ASV in patients with HFpEF and predominant central sleep apnea needs to be closely monitored. Additional well designed clinical trials are needed with samples that accurately reflect this demographic group and that have adequate sample sizes to determine the effectiveness of treatment of SDB in persons with HFpEF. Particularly, this can help determine whether or not treatment decisions need to be made according to the type of heart failure (i.e., HFrEF vs. HFpEF) or on the mix of obstructive to central events in the individual patient. Finally, further study is needed among older adults with HFpEF to examine more holistically the impact of treatment of SDB on patient-oriented outcomes such as self-management of this chronic disease and quality of life. Nursing implications Sleep disordered breathing is commonly observed in older patients with HFpEF but is not part of the routine clinical evaluation and management of heart failure.45 Therefore, SDB remains

untreated in many of these patients.45 The adverse physiological and functional effects from SDB on health-related quality of life illustrates the importance of evaluation not only for the presence of but also the risk of SDB in the heart failure population. To date, there is no approved therapy to reduce hospitalization for HFpEF.46 and evidence based interventions with proven efficacy failed to demonstrate mortality benefits.2,47 If SDB in patients with HFpEF is an important “hidden variable” for impaired symptom management, it may be a crucial therapeutic target and may improve treatment regimens and health-related quality of life. In addressing SDB in this older adult population with HFpEF, nurses can play a vital role in cardiovascular risk reduction and symptom management. References 1. Benjamin EJ, Blaha MJ, Chiuve SE, et al. Heart disease and stroke statisticse 2017 update: a report from the American heart association. Circulation. 2017;131(135):e146ee603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000152. 2. Sharma K, Kass DA. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: mechanisms, clinical features, and therapies. Circ Res. 2014;115(1):79e96. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.302922. 3. Heidenreich PA, Albert NM, Allen LA, et al. Forecasting the impact of heart failure in the United States a policy statement from the American heart association. Circ Hear Fail. 2013;6:606e619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/HHF.0b 013e318291329a. 4. Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, et al. Heart disease and stroke statisticse2013 update: a report from the American heart association. Circulation. 2013;127(1): e6ee245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e31828124ad. 5. Steinberg BA, Zhao X, Heidenreich PA, et al. Trends in patients hospitalized with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: prevalence, therapies, and outcomes. Circulation. 2012;126(1):65e75. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.080770. 6. Owan TE, Hodge DO, Herges RM, Jacobsen SJ, Roger VL, Redfield MM. Trends in prevalence and outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(3):251e259. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/ NEJMoa052256. 7. Lee DS, Gona P, Vasan RS, et al. Relation of disease pathogenesis and risk factors to heart failure with preserved or reduced ejection fraction: insights from the Framingham heart study of the national heart, lung, and blood institute. Circulation. 2009;119(24):3070e3077. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAH A.108.815944. 8. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American college of cardiology foundation/American heart association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2013;128(16):240e327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e31829 e8776. 9. Ather S, Chan W, Bozkurt B, et al. Impact of noncardiac comorbidities on morbidity and mortality in a predominantly male population with heart failure and preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(11): 998e1005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.040. 10. Javaheri S, Parker TJ, Liming JD, et al. Sleep apnea in 81 ambulatory male patients with stable heart failure. Circulation. 1998;97:2154e2159. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.97.21.2154. 11. Jilek C, Krenn M, Sebah D, et al. Prognostic impact of sleep disordered breathing and its treatment in heart failure: an observational study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2011;13(1):68e75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurjhf/hfq183. 12. Somers VK, White DP, Amin R, et al. Sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease: an American heart association/American college of cardiology foundation scientific statement from the American heart association council for high blood pressure research professional education committee, council on. Circulation. 2008;118(10): 1080e1111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.189375. 13. Tremel F, Pépin JL, Veale D, et al. High prevalence and persistance of sleep apnoea in patients referred for acute left ventricular failure and medically treated over 2 months. Eur Hear J. 1999;20:1201e1209. 14. Herrscher TE, Akre H, Overland B, Sandvik L, Westheim AS. High prevalence of sleep apnea in heart failure outpatients: even in patients with preserved systolic function. J Card Fail. 2011;17(5):420e425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.cardfail.2011.01.013. 15. American Academy of Sleep Medicine. International Classification of Sleep Disorders. Darien, IL: American Academy of Sleep Medicine; 2014. 16. Ancoli-Israel S, Kripke DF, Klauber MR, Mason WJ, Fell R, Kaplan O. Sleepdisordered breathing in community-dwelling elderly. Sleep. 1991;14(6):486e 495. 17. Mathieu A, Mazza S, Décary A, et al. Effects of obstructive sleep apnea on cognitive function: a comparison between younger and older OSAS patients. Sleep Med. 2008;9(2):112e120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2007.03.014. 18. Yaffe K, Laffan AM, Harrison SL, et al. Sleep-disordered breathing, hypoxia and risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia in older women. J Am Med Assoc. 2011;306(6):613e619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1115.

L.M. Baniak, E.R. Chasens / Geriatric Nursing xx (2017) 1e7 19. Redeker NS, Muench U, Zucker MJ, et al. Sleep disordered breathing, daytime symptoms, and functional performance in stable heart failure. Sleep. 2010;33(4):551e560. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi? artid¼2849795&tool¼pmcentrez&rendertype¼abstract. 20. Gottlieb D, Yenokyan G, Newman A, et al. A prospective study of obstructive sleep apnea and incident coronary heart disease and heart failure: the sleep heart health study. Circulation. 2010;122(4):352e360. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.901801.A. 21. Yaggi HK, Concato J, Kernan WN, Lichtman JH, Brass LM, Mohsenin V. Obstructive sleep apnea as a risk factor for stroke and death. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(19):2034e2041. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa043104. 22. Greenberg H, Lakticova V, Scharf SM. Obstructive sleep apnea: clinical features, evaluation, and principles of management. In: Kryger M, Roth T, Dement W, eds. Principles and Practice of Sleep Medicine. 6th ed. Missouri: Elsevier Saunders; 2017;1110e1124. 23. Ramar K, Dort LC, Katz SG, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea and snoring with oral appliance therapy: an update for 2015. J Clin Sleep Med. 2015;11(7):773e827. http://dx.doi.org/10.5664/ jcsm.4858. 24. Aurora RN, Chowdhuri S, Ramar K, et al. Updated adaptive servo-ventilation recommendations for the 2012 AASM guideline: “The treatment of central sleep apnea syndromes in adults: practice parameters with an evidence-based literature review and meta-analyses.”. J Clin Sleep Med. 2016;12(5):757e761. http://dx.doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.5812. 25. Cowie MR, Woehrle H, Wegscheider K, et al. Adaptive servo-ventilation for central sleep apnea in systolic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(12):1095e 1105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1506459. 26. Javaheri S. Heart failure. In: Kryger M, Roth T, Dement W, eds. Principles and Practice of Sleep Medicine, Vol 6. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 20171271e1285. 27. Bitter T, Faber L, Hering D, Langer C, Horstkotte D, Oldenburg O. Sleep-disordered breathing in heart failure with normal left ventricular ejection fraction. Eur J Heart Fail. 2009;11(6):602e608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurjhf/hfp057. 28. Oldenburg O, Lamp B, Faber L, Teschler H, Horstkotte D, Töpfer V. Sleepdisordered breathing in patients with symptomatic heart failure: a contemporary study of prevalence in and characteristics of 700 patients. Eur J Heart Fail. 2007;9(3):251e257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejheart.2006.08.003. 29. Vazir A, Hastings PC, Papaioannou I, et al. Variation in severity and type of sleep-disordered breathing throughout 4 nights in patients with heart failure. Respir Med. 2008;102(6):831e839. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2008 .01.015. 30. Aggarwal S, Nadeem R, Loomba RS, Nida M, Vieira D. The effects of continuous positive airways pressure therapy on cardiovascular end points in patients with sleep-disordered breathing and heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Cardiol. 2014;37(1):57e65. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/clc.22201. 31. Kaneko Y, Floras JS, Phil D, et al. Cardiovascular effects of continuous positive airway pressure in patients with heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(13):1233e1241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa 022479. 32. Naughton MT, Liu PP, Bernard DC, Goldstein RS, Bradley DT. Treatment of congestive heart failure and Cheyne-Stokes respiration during sleep by

33.

34.

35.

36.

37. 38. 39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

7

continuous positive airway pressure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;151(1): 92e97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.151.1.7812579. McEvoy RD, Antic NA, Heeley E, et al. CPAP for prevention of cardiovascular events in obstructive sleep apnea. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(10):919e931. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606599. Bhatia SR, Tu JV, Lee DS, et al. Outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a population-based study. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:260e269. http:// www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa051530. Borlaug BA, Redfield MM. Diastolic and systolic heart failure are distinct phenotypes of the heart failure syndrome. Circulation. 2011;123(2006-13). http:// dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.954388. discussion 2014. Edwards BA, Wellman A, Sands SA, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea in older adults is a distinctly different physiological phenotype. Sleep. 2014;37(7): 1227e1236. http://dx.doi.org/10.5665/sleep.3844. Becker BJ. Synthesizing standardized mean change measures. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1988;41:257e278. Cohen J. A power primer. Quant Methods Psychol. 1992;112(1):155e159. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155. Bitter T, Westerheide N, Faber L, et al. Adaptive servoventilation in diastolic heart failure and Cheyne-Stokes respiration. Eur Respir J. 2010;36(2):385e392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00045609. Oldenburg O, Bitter T, Wellmann B, et al. Trilevel adaptive servoventilation for the treatment of central and mixed sleep apnea in chronic heart failure patients. Sleep Med. 2013;14(5):422e427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.sleep.2012.12.013. Yoshihisa A, Suzuki S, Yamaki T, et al. Impact of adaptive servo-ventilation on cardiovascular function and prognosis in heart failure patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and sleep-disordered breathing. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15(5):543e550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurjhf/hfs197. Yoshihisa A, Suzuki S, Yamauchi H, et al. Beneficial effects of positive airway pressure therapy for sleep-disordered breathing in heart failure patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. Clin Cardiol. 2015;421:413e421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clc.22412. Arikawa T, Toyoda S, Haruyama A, et al. Impact of obstructive sleep apnoea on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Hear Lung Circ. 2016;25(5):435e 441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2015.09.011. O’Connor CM, Whellan DJ, Fiuzat M, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes with minute ventilationetargeted adaptive servo-ventilation therapy in heart failure: the CAT-HF trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(12):1577e1587. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.01.041. Khayat R, Small R, Rathman L, et al. Sleep disordered breathing in heart failure: identifying and treating an important but often unrecognized comorbidity in heart failure patients. J Card Fail. 2014;19(6):431e444. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cardfail.2013.04.005.Sleep. Butler J, Fonarow G, Zile M, et al. Developing therapies for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: current state and future directions. JACC Heart Fail. 2014;2(2):97e112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2013.10.006. Senni M, Paulus W, Gavazzi A, et al. New strategies for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the importance of targeted therapies for heart failure phenotypes. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(40). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ eurheartj/ehu204. 2797e2811d.