A comparison of 2 visual methods for classifying obstructive vs central hypopneas

Insights, recommendations, and research priorities for central sleep apnea: report from an expert panel

Central sleep apnea (CSA) is commonly encountered among patients with sleep-disordered breathing; however, its clinical consequences are less well-characterized. The senior author (A.M.) therefore convened an expert panel to discuss the common presentations of CSA, as well as challenges and knowledge gaps in the diagnosis and management of CSA. The panel identified several key research priorities essential for advancing our understanding of the disorder. Within the diagnostic realm, panel members discussed the utility of multinight assessments and importance of the development and validation of novel metrics and automated assessments for differentiating central vs obstructive hypopneas, such that their impact on clinical outcomes and management may be better evaluated. The panel also discussed the current therapeutic landscape for the management of CSA and agreed that therapies should primarily aim to alleviate sleep-related symptoms, after optimizing treatment to address the underlying cause. Most importantly, the panel concluded that there is a need to further investigate the clinical consequences of CSA, as well as the implications of therapy on clinical outcomes, particularly among those who are asymptomatic. Future research should focus on endo-phenotyping central events for a better mechanistic understanding of the disease, validating novel diagnostic methods for implementation in routine clinical practice, as well as the use of combination therapy and comparative effectiveness trials in elucidating the most efficacious interventions for managing CSA.

CITATION

Kundel V, Ahn A, Arzt M, et al. Insights, recommendations, and research priorities for central sleep apnea: report from an expert panel. J Clin Sleep Med. 2025;21(2):405-416.

Central sleep apnea: emphasizing recognition and differentiation

INTRODUCTION

Central sleep apnea (CSA) is a sleep-related breathing disorder in which the effort to breathe is intermittently diminished or absent. CSA is a common disorder among patients with different cardiovascular disorders, including heart failure. In addition, a growing number of medications have been shown to induce CSA and CSA can emerge after initiation of treatment for obstructive sleep apnea. Accumulating evidence shows that CSA is a heterogeneous disorder with individual differences in clinical and biological characteristics and/or underlying pathophysiological mechanisms.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review offers an overview of the diagnostic aspects and classification of CSA, with an emphasis on heart failure patients, patients with CSA due to a medication and treatment-emergent CSA. The importance of evaluation of prognostic biomarkers in patients with different types of CSA is discussed. This narrative review synthesizes literature on CSA sourced from the PubMed database up to February 2024.

EXPERT OPINION

CSA presents a remarkably diverse disorder, with treatment modalities exhibiting potentially varied efficacy across its various phenotypes. This highlights the imperative for tailored management strategies that are rooted in phenotype classification.

Prevalence of central sleep apnea in people with tetraplegic spinal cord injury: a retrospective analysis of research and clinical data

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Over 80% of people with tetraplegia have sleep-disordered breathing (SDB), but whether this is predominantly obstructive or central is unclear. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of central sleep apnea (CSA) in tetraplegia and the contributions of central, obstructive, and hypopnea respiratory events to SDB summary indices in tetraplegia.

METHODS

Research and clinical data from 606 individuals with tetraplegia and full overnight polysomnography were collated. The proportions of different respiratory event types were calculated; overall and for mild, moderate, and severe disease. The prevalence of Predominant CSA (Central Apnea Index [CAI] ≥ 5 and more central than obstructive apneas) and Any CSA (CAI ≥ 5) was estimated. Prevalence of sleep-related hypoventilation (SRH) was estimated in a clinical sub-cohort.

RESULTS

Respiratory events were primarily hypopneas (71%), followed by obstructive (23%), central (4%), and mixed apneas (2%). As severity increased, the relative contribution of hypopneas and central apneas decreased, while that of obstructive apneas increased. The prevalence of Predominant CSA and Any CSA were 4.3% (26/606) and 8.4% (51/606) respectively. Being male, on opiates and having a high tetraplegic spinal cord injury were associated with CSA. SRH was identified in 26% (26/113) of the clinical sub-cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study to characterize SDB in tetraplegia. It provides strong evidence that obstructive sleep apnea is the predominant SDB type; 9-18 times more prevalent than CSA. The prevalence of CSA was estimated to be 4%-8%, significantly lower than previously reported.

Predictors of Initial CPAP Prescription and Subsequent Course with CPAP in Patients with Central Sleep Apneas at a Single Center

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend considering an initial trial of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to treat central sleep apnea (CSA). However, practice patterns vary widely. This study investigated predictors for an initial trial of CPAP in patients with central apneas and whether those factors predict adequate treatment response in patients receiving an initial CPAP trial.

METHODS

Charts of patients receiving a diagnostic code for CSA following a sleep study during 2016-2018 at a single center were reviewed. Patient factors, initial treatment prescriptions, and subsequent changes to therapy were extracted from electronic health records. Regression models were used to estimate factors associated with an initial CPAP prescription and the likelihood of an adequate CPAP response (no subsequent therapy change and no discontinuation of therapy) among patients prescribed CPAP.

RESULTS

429/588 (73%) patients with central apneas received an initial trial of CPAP. Younger age, diagnosis by home sleep testing, non-opiate etiology of central apneas, and a lower proportion of central apneas at diagnosis were independently associated with a higher likelihood of an initial CPAP trial. A lower proportion of central apneas was associated with a higher probability of adequate response, while current smoking and opiate-related central apneas predicted an unsuccessful CPAP trial. A new finding was that older age predicted a lower likelihood of an initial CPAP prescription but did not predict an unsatisfactory response to CPAP.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians may incorrectly weigh certain clinical and sleep study characteristics when deciding whether to trial CPAP for patients with central apneas.

Predictors of Initial CPAP Prescription and Subsequent Course with CPAP in Patients with Central Sleep Apneas

Purpose

Guidelines recommend considering an initial trial of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to treat central sleep apnea (CSA). However, practice patterns vary widely. This study investigated predictors for an initial trial of CPAP in patients with central apneas and whether those factors predict adequate treatment response in patients receiving an initial CPAP trial.

Methods

Charts of patients receiving a diagnostic code for CSA following a sleep study during 2016-2018 at a single center were reviewed. Patient factors, initial treatment prescriptions, and subsequent changes to therapy were extracted from electronic health records. Regression models were used to estimate factors associated with an initial CPAP prescription and the likelihood of an adequate CPAP response (no subsequent therapy change or nonadherence) among patients prescribed CPAP.

Results

429/588 (73%) patients with central apneas received an initial trial of CPAP. Younger age, diagnosis by home sleep testing, non-opiate etiology of central apneas, and a lower proportion of central apneas at diagnosis were independently associated with a higher likelihood of an initial CPAP trial. A lower proportion of central apneas was associated with a higher probability of adequate response, while current smoking and opiate-related central apneas predicted an unsuccessful CPAP trial. A new finding was that older age predicted a lower likelihood of an initial CPAP prescription but did not predict a suboptimal response to CPAP.

Conclusion

Clinicians may incorrectly weigh certain clinical and sleep study characteristics when deciding whether to trial CPAP for patients with central apneas.

Distinguishing central from obstructive hypopneas on a clinical polysomnogram

Among sleep-related disordered breathing events, hypopneas are the most frequent. Like obstructive and central apneas, hypopneas may be obstructive or central (reduced drive) in origin. Nevertheless, unlike apneas, categorizing hypopneas as either "obstructive" or "central" is often difficult or ambiguous. It has been suggested that hypopneas could be categorized as obstructive when associated with snoring, inspiratory flow limitation, or paradoxical thoraco-abdominal excursions. This approach, however, has not been extensively tested and misclassification of hypopneas is unavoidable. Yet, much rides on the accurate distinction of these events to guide therapy with medical devices or pharmacological therapy in each patient. Additionally, accurate hypopnea classification is critical for design of clinical trials, because therapeutic responses differ depending on the subtype of hypopnea. Correctly classifying hypopneas can also allay concerns about obtaining coverage for therapies that specifically target either central or obstructive sleep-disordered breathing events. The present paper expands on the current criteria for differentiating obstructive from central hypopneas and provides illustrative tracings that can help classify these events.

CITATION

Javaheri S, Rapoport DM, Schwartz AR. Distinguishing central from obstructive hypopneas on a clinical polysomnogram. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(4):823-834.

Mandibular Movements are a Reliable Noninvasive Alternative to Esophageal Pressure for Measuring Respiratory Effort in Patients with Sleep Apnea Syndrome

PURPOSE

Differentiation between obstructive and central apneas and hypopneas requires quantitative measurement of respiratory effort (RE) using esophageal pressure (PES), which is rarely implemented. This study investigated whether the sleep mandibular movements (MM) signal recorded with a tri-axial gyroscopic chin sensor (Sunrise, Namur, Belgium) is a reliable surrogate of PES in patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In-laboratory polysomnography (PSG) with PES and concurrent MM monitoring was performed. PSGs were scored manually using AASM 2012 rules. Data blocks (n=8042) were randomly sampled during normal breathing (NB), obstructive or central apnea/hypopnea (OA/OH/CA/CH), respiratory effort-related arousal (RERA), and mixed apnea (MxA). Analyses were evaluation of the similarity and linear correlation between PES and MM using the longest common subsequence (LCSS) algorithm and Pearson's coefficient; description of signal amplitudes; estimation of the marginal effect for crossing from NB to a respiratory disturbance for a given change in MM signal using a mixed linear-regression.

RESULTS

Participants (n=38) had mild to severe OSA (median AH index 28.9/h; median arousal index 23.2/h). MM showed a high level of synchronization with concurrent PES signals. Distribution of MM amplitude differed significantly between event types: median (95% confidence interval) values of 0.60 (0.16-2.43) for CA, 0.83 (0.23-4.71) for CH, 1.93 (0.46-12.43) for MxA, 3.23 (0.72-18.09) for OH, and 6.42 (0.88-26.81) for OA. Mixed regression indicated that crossing from NB to central events would decrease MM signal amplitude by -1.23 (CH) and -2.04 (CA) units, while obstructive events would increase MM amplitude by +3.27 (OH) and +6.79 (OA) units (all p<10^-6).

CONCLUSION

In OSA patients, MM signals facilitated the measurement of specific levels of RE associated with obstructive, central or mixed apneas and/or hypopneas. A high degree of similarity was observed with the PES gold-standard signal.

Endotyping Sleep Apnea One Breath at a Time: An Automated Approach for Separating Obstructive from Central Sleep Disordered Breathing

Rationale

Determining whether an individual has obstructive or central sleep apnea is fundamental to selecting the appropriate treatment.

Objectives

Here we derive an automated breath-by-breath probability of obstruction, as a surrogate of gold-standard upper airway resistance, using hallmarks of upper airway obstruction visible on clinical sleep studies.

Methods

From five nocturnal polysomnography signals (airflow, thoracic and abdominal effort, oxygen saturation, and snore), nine features were extracted and weighted to derive the breath-by-breath probability of obstruction (P_obs). A development and initial test set of 29 subjects (development = 6, test = 23) (New York, NY) and a second test set of 39 subjects (Solingen, Germany), both with esophageal manometry, were used to develop P_obs and validate it against gold-standard upper airway resistance. A separate dataset of 114 subjects with 2 consecutive nocturnal polysomnographies (New York, NY) without esophageal manometry was used to assess the night-to-night variability of P_obs.

Measurements and Main Results

A total of 1,962,229 breaths were analyzed. On a breath-by-breath level, P_obs was strongly correlated with normalized upper airway resistance in both test sets (set 1: cubic adjusted [adj.] R² = 0.87, P < 0.001, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.74; set 2: cubic adj. R² = 0.83, P < 0.001, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.7). On a subject level, median P_obs was associated with the median normalized upper airway resistance (set 1: linear adj. R² = 0.59, P < 0.001; set 2: linear adj. R² = 0.45, P < 0.001). Median P_obs exhibited low night-to-night variability [intraclass correlation(2, 1) = 0.93].

Conclusions

Using nearly 2 million breaths from 182 subjects, we show that breath-by-breath probability of obstruction can reliably predict the overall burden of obstructed breaths in individual subjects and can aid in determining the type of sleep apnea.