Citations

Extremes of sleep duration and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are both associated with hypertension. We aimed to explore whether sleep duration modifies the relationship between OSA and prevalent hypertension, using both objective and subjective measures of total sleep duration. A total of 7107 OSA patients and 1118 primary snorers were included in the study. Hypertension was defined based either on direct blood pressure measures or on diagnosis by a physician. Objective sleep duration was derived by polysomnography and subjective sleep duration was self-reported. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the associations between objective/subjective sleep duration and hypertension prevalence in OSA and primary snorers. Compared with primary snorers, OSA combined with objective sleep duration of 5 to 6 hours increased the odds of hypertension by 45% (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.14–1.84), whereas OSA combined with objective sleep duration <5 hours further increased the odds of hypertension by 80% (odds ratio, 1.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.33–2.42). These results were independent of major confounding factors frequently associated with OSA or hypertension. In stratified analysis by sleep duration, risk of hypertension in those with extremely short sleep (<5 hours) was not significantly different between OSA and primary snorers, whereas odds were significant for OSA in the other 4 sleep duration strata (5–6, 6–7, 7–8, and >8 hours). No significance was evident using subjective sleep duration. We conclude that objective short sleep duration is associated with hypertension in OSA patients. Extremely short sleep duration in itself may actually be even more detrimental than OSA in terms of hypertension risk.

Abstract Background Previous studies comparing early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) with delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC) for acute cholecystitis were incomplete. A meta-analysis was undertaken to compare the cost-effectiveness, quality of life, safety and effectiveness of ELC versus DLC. Methods PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared ELC (performed within 7 days of symptom onset) with DLC (undertaken at least 1 week after symptoms had subsided) for acute cholecystitis. Results Sixteen studies reporting on 15 RCTs comprising 1625 patients were included. Compared with DLC, ELC was associated with lower hospital costs, fewer work days lost (mean difference (MD) –11·07 (95 per cent c.i. –16·21 to −5·94) days; P &lt; 0·001), higher patient satisfaction and quality of life, lower risk of wound infection (relative risk 0·65, 95 per cent c.i. 0·47 to 0·91; P = 0·01) and shorter hospital stay (MD −3·38 (−4·23 to −2·52) days; P &lt; 0·001), but a longer duration of operation (MD 11·12 (4·57 to 17·67) min; P &lt; 0·001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in mortality, bile duct injury, bile leakage, conversion to open cholecystectomy or overall complications. Conclusion For patients with acute cholecystitis, ELC appears as safe and effective as DLC. ELC might be associated with lower hospital costs, fewer work days lost, and greater patient satisfaction.