"Sleep apnea's CPAP machine doesn't cut heart risks, study s

[robo2084]

Wasn't sure if this has been discussed (article came out earlier this year or last year I think).

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/29/health/cp ... index.html

We know that people who have sleep apnea have worse health outcomes and worse cardiac outcomes in particular than people who don't. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that TREATING sleep apnea with CPAP improves health outcomes. This study suggests it doesn't.

One issue with the study appears to be that the CPAP group didn't have great adherence (3.3 hours per night on average).

[kteague]

Yes, this was recently discussed. A couple things - quality of life is important even if their "conclusion" is so. Also, any time we see studies related to CPAP use, we should wonder about the criteria. For instance, unless the test subjects were required to use the treatment 100% of their sleep time and it was confirmed their treatment was therapeutic, the results are suspect.

[Pugsy]

I wish somebody would do these studies on people who actually use the darn machine every night and all night long.
3.3. hour average....duh...Boggles my mind that they can come to these conclusions based on people with poor usage history.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that "only using it 3 hours a night doesn't help much"...duh...I could have told them that without even doing a study.

All that study tells me is what I just said...using it 3 hours a night doesn't seem to change cardiovascular risks...no brainer to me.

Doesn't matter to me though...even if they had used people like me who always use the machine and the results ended up being the same...I would still use the machine because there's so much more to all this that goes on than just cardiovascular stuff.
Like the oxygen levels going to 73%...that's gotta be harmful...and the killer headaches which were more than just annoying. So it might not prevent a heart attack...maybe it might make my chances of coming through a heart attack better.

[robo2084]

I'll continue with my CPAP too - for one thing I get super stressed now if I don't have it.

But as someone with a somewhat scientific/ analytical bent, I certainly wish that there were firmer hard evidence for its efficacy as far as measurable outcomes. It's hard to conduct any real study on CPAP, unfortunately.

[Goofproof]

Wasn't sure if this has been discussed (article came out earlier this year or last year I think).

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/29/health/cp ... index.html

We know that people who have sleep apnea have worse health outcomes and worse cardiac outcomes in particular than people who don't. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that TREATING sleep apnea with CPAP improves health outcomes. This study suggests it doesn't.

One issue with the study appears to be that the CPAP group didn't have great adherence (3.3 hours per night on average).

Sounds like some more fools got paid for a fools study, taken to heart by more fools.... Jim

[D.H.]

Most insurance considers 4 hours per night, 70% of the nights to be "compliant." This number is fairly arbitrary, but I will concede that at this level of usage, the patient gets "some benefit" from using the machine.

I think that if they had a higher threshold for compliance (for purpose of such a study), the results would show a distinct benefit in this area!

[Pugsy]

Most insurance considers 4 hours per night, 70% of the nights to be "compliant." This number is fairly arbitrary, but I will concede that at this level of usage, the patient gets "some benefit" from using the machine.

Yeah...like I always say "some therapy is always better than no therapy" but for real life evaluation on benefits...more hours is always better than less hours.

It's like being diabetic and taking insulin. Half a dose might be better than nothing but to really maximize benefits the proper dose needs to be taken. Common sense tells us that.
Doing a study on diabetics who routinely take only half a dose..duh...bet the outcome isn't going to be all that great and they come up with "taking half a dose doesn't help so and so"...well, that's a wasted study IMHO.

[Pugsy]

so the study was correct

for the typical person cpap does not help the heart
does not matter if the root cause is the typical person wont use the machine as much as would help

It's a crap study but correct given the limitations of the study. Gives the impression that cpap doesn't help anyone who uses cpap period. People will use it as an excuse for not using cpap.
"why bother since it won't help me prevent a cardiovascular event"...that type of thing.

We use cpap for a lot more reasons than just preventing cardiovascular events but people wanting excuses to not use it...they are going to love these study results.

[Goofproof]

so the study was correct

for the typical person cpap does not help the heart
does not matter if the root cause is the typical person wont use the machine as much as would help

It's a crap study but correct given the limitations of the study. Gives the impression that cpap doesn't help anyone who uses cpap period. People will use it as an excuse for not using cpap.
"why bother since it won't help me prevent a cardiovascular event"...that type of thing.

We use cpap for a lot more reasons than just preventing cardiovascular events but people wanting excuses to not use it...they are going to love these study results.

Fools, anything to promote De-Nile, too many people in the world, Keep making Junk Studies, maybe you can make enough off them to move out of your Mom's Basement. Plenty of Fools waiting to read them. We really shouldn't be passing them around here. Jim

[chunkyfrog]

3.5 hours AVERAGE?
Can we say "predetermined results"?
So, whoever paid for this "study"--What "alternative treatment" are they pushing?
Or do we even care?

[ChicagoGranny]

so the study was correct

for the typical person cpap does not help the heart

I agree that CPAP doesn't help prevent heart disease.

[ChicagoGranny]

It's using CPAP that helps prevent heart disease.

[palerider]

It's using CPAP that helps prevent heart disease.

Bwaaa? You mean I can't just stick it in the closet and enjoy perfect health? What a rip-off!

[Pugsy]

It's a crap study because it alludes that the "typical" cpap user is someone who uses cpap for 3 plus hours. Maybe I am not typical then....but I would like to see a study done on people more like me...then it becomes relevant to me.

and you misstate the results
only fools who dont read the study will refuse to use cpap to get help

No...I didn't. I gave my opinion of the study.
You of all people should well understand that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

You think someone who is in denial about using cpap isn't going to use this as an excuse...you don't know people in denial. They will use any excuse their little brains can come up to not do use cpap because they don't want to.
I have already seen people say "this study says cpap doesn't help" so I am thinking about quitting. These are people just looking for excuses to quit or not even start.

[Goofproof]

3.5 hours AVERAGE?
Can we say "predetermined results"?
So, whoever paid for this "study"--What "alternative treatment" are they pushing?
Or do we even care?

You can bet in the end, Taxpayers, directly or indirectly! Jim