Background Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a heterogeneous disorder, and improved understanding of physiologic phenotypes and their clinical implications is needed. We aimed to determine whether routine polysomnographic data can be used to identify OSA phenotypes (clusters) and to assess the associations between the phenotypes and cardiovascular outcomes. Methods Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of a multisite, observational US Veteran (n=1247) cohort were performed. Principal components-based clustering was used to identify polysomnographic features in OSA’s four pathophysiological domains (sleep architecture disturbance, autonomic dysregulation, breathing disturbance and hypoxia). Using these features, OSA phenotypes were identified by cluster analysis (K-means). Cox survival analysis was used to evaluate longitudinal relationships between clusters and the combined outcome of incident transient ischaemic attack, stroke, acute coronary syndrome or death. Results Seven patient clusters were identified based on distinguishing polysomnographic features: ‘mild’, ‘periodic limb movements of sleep (PLMS)’, ‘NREM and arousal’, ‘REM and hypoxia’, ‘hypopnoea and hypoxia’, ‘arousal and poor sleep’ and ‘combined severe’. In adjusted analyses, the risk (compared with ‘mild’) of the combined outcome (HR (95% CI)) was significantly increased for ‘PLMS’, (2.02 (1.32 to 3.08)), ‘hypopnoea and hypoxia’ (1.74 (1.02 to 2.99)) and ‘combined severe’ (1.69 (1.09 to 2.62)). Conventional apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI) severity categories of moderate (15≤AHI<30) and severe (AHI ≥30), compared with mild/none category (AHI <15), were not associated with increased risk. Conclusions Among patients referred for OSA evaluation, routine polysomnographic data can identify physiological phenotypes that capture risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes otherwise missed by conventional OSA severity classification.

Background: Several studies in the United Kingdom and Asia have suggested that medical students and residents have particular difficulty in diagnosing and managing patients with neurological problems. Little recent information is available for US trainees. We examined whether students and residents at a US university have difficulty in dealing with patients with neurological problems, identified the perceived sources of these difficulties and provide suggestions for the development of an effective educational experience in neurology. Methods: A questionnaire was administered to third and fourth year medical students at a US school of medicine and to residents of an internal medicine residency program affiliated with that school. Perceived difficulties with eight medical specialties, including neurology, were examined. Methods considered to be most useful for learning medicine were documented. Reasons why neurology is perceived as difficult and ways to improve neurological teaching were assessed. Results: 152 surveys were completed. Participation rates varied, with medical students having higher response rates (> 50%) than medical residents (27%-48%). Respondents felt that neurology was the medical specialty they had least knowledge in (p < 0.001) and was most difficult (p < 0.001). Trainees also felt they had the least confidence when dealing with patients with neurological complaints (p < 0.001). Residents felt more competent in neurology than students (p < 0.001). The paramount reasons for perceived difficulties with neurology were the complexity of neuroanatomy, limited patient exposure and insufficient teaching. Transition from pre-clinical to clinical medicine led to a doubling of "poor" ratings for neurological teaching. Over 80% of the respondents felt that neurology teaching could be improved through greater exposure to patients and more bedside tutorials. Conclusions: Medical students and residents at this US medical university found neurology difficult. Although this is consistent with prior reports from Europe and Asia, studies in other universities are needed to confirm generalizability of these findings. The optimal opportunity for improvement is during the transition from preclinical to clinical years. Enhanced integration of basic neurosciences and clinical neurology with emphasis on increased bedside tutorials and patient exposure should improve teaching. Studies are needed to quantify the effect of these interventions on confidence of trainees when dealing with patients presenting with neurological complaints.

Rationale: Randomized controlled trials of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have not demonstrated protection against adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Recently, observational studies revealed that OSA-related cardiovascular risk is concentrated in patients with an elevated pulse rate response to respiratory events (ΔHR). Objectives: Here, in this post hoc analysis of a prospective clinical trial, we test the hypothesis that a greater pretreatment ΔHR is associated with greater CPAP-related protection against adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: ΔHR was measured from baseline polysomnography of the RICCADSA (Randomized Intervention with CPAP in CAD and OSA) randomized controlled trial (patients with coronary artery disease [CAD] and OSA [apnea–hypopnea index ⩾ 15 events/h] with Epworth Sleepiness Scale score < 10; n_CPAP:n_control = 113:113; male, 85%; age, 66 ± 8 [mean ± SD] yr). The primary outcome was a composite of repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality. Multivariable Cox regression assessed whether the effect of CPAP was moderated by ΔHR (treatment-by-ΔHR interaction). Measurements and Main Results: The CPAP-related reduction in risk increased progressively with increasing pretreatment ΔHR (interaction hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.49 [0.27 to 0.90] per SD increase in ΔHR; P < 0.05). This means that in patients with a ΔHR of 1 SD above the mean (i.e., 10 beats/min), CPAP was estimated to reduce cardiovascular risk by 59% (6% to 82%) (P < 0.05), but no significant risk reduction was estimated in patients with a mean ΔHR (6 beats/min; CPAP risk reduction, 16% [−53% to 54%]; P = 0.6). Conclusions: The protective effect of CPAP in patients with CAD and OSA without excessive sleepiness was modified by the ΔHR. Specifically, patients with higher ΔHR exhibit greater cardiovascular benefit from CPAP therapy.