Evidence Hub

Positive airway pressure therapy and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in people with obstructive sleep apnoea: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and confounder-adjusted, non-randomised controlled studies

A. Benjafield, J. Pépin, P. Cistulli, A. Wimms, F. Lavergne, F. S. Sert Kuniyoshi, S. Munson, B. Schuler et al.

The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 2025

81 citations

Abstract

Summary Background Data regarding the effect of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) on all-cause mortality are inconsistent. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to test the hypothesis that PAP therapy is associated with reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in people with OSA. Methods For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from database inception to Aug 22, 2023 (updated Sept 9, 2024), with no language or geographical restrictions. Reference lists of eligible studies and recent conference abstracts (2022–23) were also reviewed. We included outpatient studies (randomised controlled trials [RCTs] or confounder-adjusted, non-randomised controlled studies [NRCSs]) assessing the incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or both in adults (aged ≥18 years) with OSA who were treated versus not treated with PAP; other study types and studies that evaluated only PAP adherence were excluded. Abstracts of all retrieved publications were independently screened by two of three researchers (BS, SRB, and KCW), with disagreements resolved by adjudication from another researcher (SHM). The AutoLit feature of the Nested Knowledge platform was used for the review and data-extraction phases. We analysed each log-transformed hazard ratio (HR) and SE using a linear random-effects model to estimate overall HRs and 95% CIs.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free