Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cardiac Failure Review logoLink to Cardiac Failure Review
. 2025 Aug 20;11:e22. doi: 10.15420/cfr.2025.07

Revisiting Transvenous Phrenic Nerve Stimulation in Central Sleep Apnoea and Heart Failure: Emerging Innovations in Clinical Trials Analysis

Tarek Bekfani 1,✉, Joseph D Abraham 2, William T Abraham 3
PMCID: PMC12400169  PMID: 40901558

Abstract

Central sleep apnoea (CSA) is a common comorbidity in patients with heart failure. Due to its insidious and chronic nature, CSA often remains unrecognised. Patients with CSA typically present with symptoms, such as daytime fatigue, recurrent heart failure decompensations and cardiac arrhythmias. Although the pathophysiology of CSA is not yet fully understood, the most widely accepted theory suggests that fluctuations in PaCO2 levels, particularly crossing the apnoeic threshold, play a central role in its development. CSA is associated with various changes, including activation of the sympathetic nervous system, neurohormonal disturbances and haemodynamic perturbations, all of which contribute to increased morbidity and mortality. Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation (TPNS) has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective therapy for reducing the apnoea–hypopnoea index and improving both left ventricular ejection fraction and quality of life in patients with CSA. These benefits have been validated in randomised clinical trials (RCTs). New methods of analysing RCTs were recently introduced. Applying the win ratio method in a post hoc analysis of the primary RCTs evaluating TPNS suggested that TPNS may also contribute to reduced mortality and fewer heart failure hospitalisations. In this article we explore the pathophysiology of CSA and evaluate the existing evidence on therapeutic options, with a particular focus on TPNS.

Keywords: Phrenic nerve stimulation, sleep apnoea, heart failure

Sleep apnoea, also referred to as sleep-disordered breathing (SDB), is among the most prevalent comorbidities in patients with heart failure (HF).1 SDB, particularly central sleep apnoea (CSA), is often overlooked because patients with CSA do not always present with typical signs and symptoms, such as snoring or obesity, which are more commonly associated with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA).2,3 In addition, screening for SDB is not routinely incorporated into the standard evaluation and management of patients with HF.4 Regular screening for CSA in the HF population would likely reveal higher prevalence rates and could have important therapeutic and prognostic implications.

CSA primarily occurs due to a failure in signalling from the brainstem, whereas OSA is characterised by preserved central stimulation along with abdominal and thoracic efforts, with the issue being obstruction of the upper airway.5

In an observational study of a cohort of patients with HF with preserved (HFpEF) or reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction, those with SDB presented with preclinical congestion.6 In all, 111 patients with HF were screened and water volume was measured concurrently using bioimpedance analysis.

Total body water and extracellular water volumes were increased in patients with HF and sleep apnoea who were clinically compensated, indicating preclinical congestion. The volume of water was found to be associated with the severity of SDB, as measured by the apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI).6

CSA may present either as a comorbidity to other conditions or syndromes, such as HF, AF, kidney disease and stroke, or as idiopathic CSA when no underlying cause can be identified.7

Each episode of apnoea or hypopnoea in CSA triggers a cascade of events, including hypoxia, arousals and activation of the sympathetic nervous system. These processes are associated with detrimental effects, such as worsened sleep quality, reduced concentration, dementia, ischaemic changes in myocardial and brain tissue and an increased risk of arrhythmias.5,8–10 Furthermore, CSA is associated independently with higher morbidity and mortality.11,12

This makes screening for SDB in patients with HF, and treating them appropriately, crucial for optimal management. In a previous paper, an algorithm was proposed outlining which patients should be screened for SDB and how they should be treated.4

Central Illustration.

Central Illustration

The figure shows the symptoms (fatigue) and polysomnography findings of patients with central sleep apnoea, as well as the changes observed after treatment with the implanted phrenic nerve stimulator (remedē® System). Numbers 1 and 2 depict the mechanism of action and the proven effects demonstrated in the pivotal randomised clinical trial, respectively; number 3 presents the recently published post hoc analysis using the win ratio. TPNS = transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation. remedē® System image reproduced with permission from Zoll.

Open in a new tab

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is an established therapy for OSA and, to a lesser extent, CSA.13 Adaptive servo-ventilation has been shown to be harmful for patients with HFrEF and was associated with increased cardiovascular mortality.14 In a recently well-conducted metaanalysis and systematic review, the outcomes of therapies for patients with CSA and HFrEF or HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) were investigated.15 Although there was a statistically significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), AHI and quality of life (QoL) during the first 3 months, these improvements diminished thereafter, with the exception of improvements in AHI.15 This was primarily attributed to reduced patient compliance, as reported in five of the 11 studies.15

Another established therapy for treating patients with CSA is transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation (TPNS). Several studies over the past decade have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of this technology, using the implanted remedē System, in improving sleep architecture and QoL in patients with CSA.16–18 Interestingly, recent post hoc analyses have suggested that TPNS may reduce mortality and HF hospitalisation rates, as well as improve patient global assessment (PGA) in patients with HF and CSA.16–18

The aim of this article is to explore the pathophysiology of CSA, describe the implanted remedē System and summarise the current evidence regarding TPNS in patients with CSA and HF.

Pathophysiology of Sleep Apnoea

The exact mechanism underlying CSA is still largely not understood. However, there is a consensus that changes in PaCO2 levels, both above and below the apnoeic threshold, play a central role in the development of CSA. Under normal conditions, breathing is initiated when PaCO2 exceeds a certain threshold.19,20 This level is tightly regulated through central (brain and brainstem) and peripheral (carotid sinus) chemoreceptors that interact with the chest wall, respiratory muscles (e.g. diaphragm), the lungs and arterial blood gases.21 These coordinated interactions lead to the regulation of PaCO2 levels in the blood.4,22,23

Patients with HF experience dyspnoea (hyperventilation) both during exercise and while asleep. In the latter case, this is likely related to volume redistribution in the supine position, which leads to hyperventilation and results in reduced PaCO2 concentrations in the blood.24–27 If PaCO2 decreases below the apnoeic threshold, mechanisms to correct the low PaCO2 are activated centrally, leading to the cessation of breathing (apnoea). This results in an elevation of PaCO2, which then triggers the initiation of breathing again. This repetitive cycle typically leads to Cheyne–Stokes breathing.28,29

In healthy individuals, the reduced muscular tone when falling asleep leads to an increase in airway resistance.30 In addition, ventilation decreases physiologically during sleep, resulting in elevated PaCO2 levels that exceed the apnoeic threshold, which ensures continued breathing. These changes help maintain a healthy sleep pattern.5

However, several changes, such as hyperventilation, circulatory delay and diminished cerebrovascular reactivity, occur in patients with HF, leading to respiratory instability. The lung-to-ear circulation serves as a surrogate parameter describing the circulatory delay resulting from reduced cardiac output. This delay affects the ability of chemoreceptors to detect changes in CO2, which, in turn, affects sleep architecture and worsens periodic breathing in patients with CSA and HF.31

A further limitation to normal breathing in patients with both HF and CSA is the diminished cerebrovascular reactivity, which refers to the delayed response of cerebral blood flow to changes in PaCO2 levels.32 This leads to a reduced ability of the central respiratory control centre to adequately regulate the undershoots or overshoots in PaCO2 levels resulting from sleep apnoea.

Each HF subtype, namely HFrEF, HFpEF and HFmrEF, is driven by distinct underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, highlighting their unique clinical and biological characteristics. HFrEF is primarily associated with impaired systolic function, often resulting from MI, dilated cardiomyopathy or direct myocyte loss.33–35 In contrast, HFpEF is largely characterised by diastolic dysfunction, increased myocardial stiffness and a strong association with systemic comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity and chronic inflammation.35,36 These factors contribute to microvascular dysfunction and impaired ventricular relaxation. HFmrEF represents an intermediate phenotype with overlapping features from both HFrEF and HFpEF, and its pathophysiology is still being actively explored. For example, regarding ischaemic aetiology, HFmrEF appears to be more similar to HFrEF than HFpEF, with a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease.33,35,37 Recognising that these HF subtypes arise from fundamentally different molecular and structural disturbances is crucial for guiding more precise and effective treatment strategies, because a uniform therapeutic approach does not account for the heterogeneity inherent in the syndrome of HF.

However, existing evidence for the treatment of CSA in HF suggests that current therapies may offer benefits across the full spectrum of HF phenotypes (Table 1). Nevertheless, given that most clinical trials have predominantly enrolled patients with HFrEF (Table 1), there remains a pressing need to generate more robust data specifically for patients with HFpEF.

Table 1: Summary of Trials on Transvenous Phrenic Nerve Stimulation Using the remedē System.

Study No. Patients LVEF* (%) Study Design Primary Outcome Primary Outcome Met?
Abraham et al. 201548 47 30.5 ± 11.6 Pilot trial: Prospective multicentre nonrandomised study ≥50% improvement in AHI from baseline to 3 months Yes
Jagielski et al. 201672 47 30.5 ± 11.6 Analysis of prospective multicentre non-randomised trial (extension of pilot trial) Sustained improvement from 3 to 12 months in AHI, T<90 and %REM Yes
Costanzo et al. 201649 151 39.6 ± 12.1 Pivotal trial: Prospective multicentre randomised trial ≥50% improvement in AHI baseline to 6 months Yes
Costanzo et al. 201816 151 40 ± 12 Prospective multicentre randomised open-label controlled trial (extension of pivotal trial) ≥50% improvement in AHI after 12 months of therapy Yes
Costanzo et al. 201818 96 34.5 ± 12.1 Post hoc analysis of prospective multicentre randomised open-label controlled trial (data from pivotal trial) Improvement in AHI ≥ 50%, T90, %REM, ESS and MLHFQ at 12 months versus baseline Yes
Costanzo et al. 202152 53 43 ± 10 Post approval study of pivotal trial To assess the safety and efficacy of TPNS in patients with CSA at 5 years of therapy NA
Baumert et al. 202356† 48 19% had LVEF ≤40% Analysis of prospective multicentre randomised trial (data from pivotal trial) To determine the effect of TPNS on nocturnal heart rate perturbations in patients with CSA NA
Baumert et al. 202363† 134 42% of patients had LVEF ≤40% Ancillary study of prospective multicentre randomised trial (data from pivotal trial) To determine the effect of TPNS on nocturnal hypoxaemic burden in patients with CSA NA
Fudim et al. 201973 208 38.7 [25.6, 47.0] A pooled cohort analysis of pivotal and pilot trials Evaluate TPNS to characterise efficacy and safety NA
Jagielski et al. 201974 31 23.6 ± 7.2 from Pilot
32.6 ± 12.7 from Pivotal		 Post hoc analysis of pilot and pivotal trials at one centre To analyse the efficacy and safety of TPNS-implanted patients at a single centre NA
Nayak et al. 202055 151 30 ± 11 (CIED group)
47 ± 7 (no CIED group)		 Analysis of prospective multicentre randomised trial (data from pivotal trial) To analyse the efficacy and safety of TPNS between patient cohort with and without CIEDs NA
Oldenburg et al. 202175 131 44.0 [29.0–49.0] Post hoc analysis of prospective multicentre randomised trial (data from pivotal trial) To evaluate whether there was a significant improvement of hypoxaemic burden in TPNS patients Yes
Potratz et al. 202176 24 42.4 ± 13.4 Prospective open-label study Change in symptom-limited standardised 6MWT and hypoxaemic burden at 6 months Yes
Schwartz et al. 202177 151 47 [38–51] (PAP-treated) 41 [26–47] (PAP-naïve) Post hoc analysis of prospective multicentre randomised trial (data from pivotal trial) To examine differential effects of TPNS on CSA, sleep architecture and patient-reported outcomes in PAP-naïve and PAP-treated patients with HF NA
Open in a new tab

*Unless indicated otherwise, LVEF data are presented as the mean ± SD or as the median [interquartile range]. †The study did not report the mean or median LVEF. 6MWT = 6-minute walk test; AHI = apnoea–hypopnea index; CIED = cardiovascular implantable electronic devices; CSA = central sleep apnoea; ESS = Epworth Sleepiness Scale; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; MLHFQ = Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire; PAP = positive airway pressure; REM = rapid eye movement; T90 = time spent with O2 saturation <90%; TPNS = transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation.

All the aforementioned factors and mechanisms highlight the complex pathophysiology of CSA in HF. Despite the availability of therapeutic options, treating patients with both CSA and HF remains challenging and therapeutic options are not widely offered.

Options for the Management of Central Sleep Apnoea in Patients With Heart Failure

Mask-based Therapy

Although CPAP is the standard therapy for patients with OSA, there is insufficient evidence supporting its effectiveness in patients with CSA.38 CPAP works by increasing intrathoracic pressure to keep the alveoli open and push air into the lungs. Earlier trials have shown that this method may be effective in reducing the AHI, as well as improving LVEF and QoL only in the first 3 months.13,39,40 However, CPAP is associated with haemodynamic disadvantages, particularly on the right ventricle, which compromises the already reduced ventricular output in patients with HF, ultimately leading to further deterioration of cardiac function.41 In addition, studies have shown that CPAP led to reduced cardiac output in patients with HFrEF, particularly in those with reduced pulmonary wedge pressure.42

Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy

Nocturnal oxygen therapy represents a physiologically sound approach to the treatment of CSA in HFrEF. Some evidence supports the potential clinical benefit of nocturnal oxygen in patients with HFrEF,43–45 but there is no convincing proof of its effectiveness. Indeed, the results of the LOFT-HF trial (NCT03745898) suggest there is, at best, a neutral effect of nocturnal oxygen on clinical outcomes.46 However, that trial was terminated early due to poor enrolment, and was thus underpowered for the assessment of clinical outcomes.

The remedē Device: Description and Implantation Process

The remedē System is a fully implantable, lead-based device, typically implanted on the right side in the pectoral region. The system consists of a neurostimulator, similar to a pacemaker, along with stimulating leads. Depending on the patient’s anatomy, the stimulating lead is advanced into the pericardiophrenic vein or the right brachiocephalic vein. Respiration is sensed through the stimulation lead, which is usually placed in the azygos vein (Figures 1 and 2).47

Figure 1: The remedē System and the Program Used for Regular Interrogation of the Implanted Device.

Figure 1:

remedē® System image reproduced with permission from Zoll.

Open in a new tab

Figure 2: Thorax X-ray Showing the Implanted remedē System With the Stimulation Lead.

Figure 2:

Open in a new tab

The remedē System delivers unilateral TPNS to the diaphragm, causing it to contract and create a negative pressure that simulates physiological breathing. The system is typically activated 1 month after implantation and is designed to automatically stimulate the diaphragm when patients are asleep and in a reclining position, according to an individually programmed algorithm simulating physiological breathing (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Normal Inspiration Versus Inspiration With Established Central Sleep Apnoea Therapies.

Figure 3:

ASV = adaptive servo-ventilation; CPAP = continuous positive airway pressure. Source: Bekfani et al. 2016.4 Reproduced with permission from Oxford University Press.

Open in a new tab

Stimulation is programmed to increase automatically to achieve sufficient diaphragm stimulation while the patient is fully asleep (Figure 4). This typically occurs over a period of about 12 weeks. The goal is to reach a balance between the strength and effectiveness of the stimulation and the threshold at which the patient begins to feel discomfort from the stimulation.48

Figure 4: Effect of the remedē System on Central Sleep Apnoea as Shown on Polysomnography.

Figure 4:

Source: Bekfani et al. 2016.4 Reproduced with permission from Oxford University Press.

Open in a new tab

Approval Trial and Recent Analysis of the remedē System

In the remedē pivotal trial (NCT01816776), conducted between April 2013 and May 2015, 151 patients were randomised across 31 centres in Germany, Poland and the US. The trial recruited patients who were aged ≥18 years, had been clinically stable for the past month and had an AHI of ≥20. After implantation of the remedē device, patients were randomised 1:1 to receive either active therapy (device on) or usual care (device off) for the first 6 months. The results were analysed on an intention-to-treat principle.18

The primary outcome was defined as a reduction in AHI of at least 50%. In all, 51% of patients in the therapy arm met this criterion, compared with just 11% in the usual-care arm, representing a significant difference of 41% (p<0.0001). In addition, 91% of participants did not experience any serious adverse events over a period of 12 months. Non-serious adverse events occurred in 37% of patients, 36% of which were resolved through reprogramming of the remedē device.18

This first randomised controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated that phrenic nerve stimulation significantly improved AHI, sleep structure and QoL in patients on therapy compared with those not receiving therapy.18 The procedure and the device were found to be safe.49 A detailed comparison of trials that have been conducted using TPNS in patients with HF and CSA is presented in Table 1.

In the remedē pivotal trial, half the patients were randomised to the usualcare group (therapy off), whereas the other half were randomised to the intervention arm (therapy on).18 After a 6-month period, all randomised patients were switched to receive active therapy. The sustained benefits of 12 months of TPNS for CSA were demonstrated by Costanzo et al.16 In that analysis, sleep indices were evaluated from baseline to 12 months in the treatment group and from 6 to 12 months in the control group. Sixty per cent of patients in the treatment group achieved a reduction of ≥50% in AHI at 6 months, with 67% achieving this reduction at 12 months.16 In addition, 55% of patients who had started in the control group reached the same AHI reduction at 12 months. Similarly, a significant and persistent improvement in the PGA was observed under TPNS therapy.16 Importantly, the benefits of TPNS were not associated with any increase in serious adverse events.16 Similar results were shown for different durations of follow-up.50

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of unilateral TPNS via the remedē System as a therapy for moderate and severe CSA in 2017, based on the results of the aforementioned RCT.51 The 5-year post-approval study (PAS) collected data that emphasised the safety and efficacy of the remedē device, further supporting its use as a treatment for moderate to severe CSA.52 In all, 52 patients were included in the final analysis. The PAS confirmed that TPNS improves sleep architecture, QoL and daytime sleepiness 5 years after implantation, without any additional safety concerns.52 Based on these findings, the FDA recently concluded that the PAS met the required criteria for demonstrating long-term efficacy and safety of TPNS.53

Currently, a large prospective non-randomised multicentre international study is under way.54 The study will recruit up to 500 patients with moderate to severe CSA who have received the remedē device in a postmarket setting and follow them for up to 5 years. The study will assess sleep structure and PGA. In addition, patients with HF will undergo echocardiography, the 6-minute walk test and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. The results of the study will provide real-life data regarding patient selection, additional benefits and potential risks that have not yet been observed.54

Because many HF patients who are candidates for TPNS also have concomitant cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs), a justified concern arises about potential adverse interactions between the CIED and the remedē device. Nayak et al. investigated this issue by analysing data from the remedē pivotal study, which included 151 patients.55 Of these 151 patients, 42% had a concomitant CIED. Nayak et al. found no significant differences in safety or efficacy between patients with and without CIEDs.55 There were four instances of CIED oversensing in three patients, leading to one inappropriate shock and the delivery of antitachycardia pacing. Nayak et al. concluded that TPNS is safe for patients with CIEDs and recommended implementing a detailed protocol to avoid device–device interactions and inappropriate therapies.55 However, these data should be confirmed in further studies, because nearly 60% of the devices in the study cohort were manufactured by Medtronic. It would be advisable to include a wider spectrum of devices from different manufacturers to better assess the potential for device–device interactions across various models.

Several studies have been conducted subsequently on the group of patients included in the remedē pivotal study, each focusing on different hypothesis testing that explore various interesting aspects. In an ancillary study of the remedē pivotal trial, Baumert et al. demonstrated that TPNS is associated with the normalisation of nocturnal heart rate perturbations.56 Whether this normalisation of heart rate perturbations would be associated with reduced mortality needs to be further investigated in larger, randomised trials. Baumert et al. analysed heart rate perturbations in 48 patients with CSA and sinus rhythm who were randomised to active therapy (TPNS) or control.56 The analysis was performed on polysomnograms obtained at baseline and at the 6-month follow-up, as part of the pivotal study. Heart rate variability is often used as a surrogate marker for an intact autonomic system. In patients with HF and CSA, diminished vagal tone and increased sympathetic tone during arousals following an apnoeic episode led to an elevated heart rate and markedly cyclical heart rate variations.56 Studies have shown that the very low-frequency power index (VLFI), which refers to these altered heart rate patterns, is associated with cortical arousals and activation of the autonomic nervous system.57 This repeated activation of the autonomic nervous system during the night in patients with sleep apnoea leads to chronic alterations in cardiac response. Specifically, it lowers baroreflex sensitivity and increases sympathetic tone during the daytime. This phenomenon is observed in patients with HF and sleep apnoea, as well as in those with OSA alone. The persistent sympathetic activation contributes to worsened cardiovascular outcomes, including increased blood pressure and heart rate variability during the night, further exacerbating disease progression.58–60 Moreover, repetitive arousals increase myocardial stress, which may lead to arrhythmias.61,62

These findings highlight the importance of TPNS in patients with HF and CSA. By reducing the VLFI and normalising nocturnal heart rate perturbations, TPNS may play a significant role in improving autonomic regulation. This could potentially be linked to a reduction in mortality, offering a promising therapeutic avenue for these patients.

A further study showed that TPNS leads to a reduced hypoxaemic burden.63 In that analysis, the oxygen desaturation index (ODI) and the percentage of sleep time spent with O2 saturation <90% (T90%) were analysed using baseline and follow-up data from overnight polysomnograms in 134 patients with moderate to severe CSA, who were randomised 1:1 to receive either TPNS or usual care. The authors found that TPNS significantly reduced both the ODI and T90% compared with the control group.63 The nocturnal hypoxaemic burden was shown to be associated with increased cardiovascular mortality and worse long-term cardiovascular outcomes. This further emphasises the potential benefits of TPNS in reducing these harmful effects in patients with CSA and HF.64 In addition, the total nocturnal time spent in the T90% range was found to be an AHI-independent factor in predicting worse cardiovascular prognosis in older men with HF.63 Thus, addressing nocturnal hypoxaemia with therapies like TPNS could have important implications for improving cardiovascular outcomes in this patient population.65 This should be investigated further. These results may be very helpful in understanding the underlying reasons for the increased mortality in patients with CSA. By identifying the impact of nocturnal hypoxaemia and heart rate perturbations, these findings provide valuable insights into the mechanisms that contribute to adverse cardiovascular outcomes in this patient group. Addressing these factors through targeted therapies like TPNS may help mitigate some of the risks associated with CSA and improve long-term survival in patients with HF.

Recently, a novel method for analysing composite outcomes in clinical trials, known as the win ratio (WR), has been introduced.66 The WR enables the prioritisation of outcomes based on their clinical relevance and presents results in accordance with the importance of these outcomes. This approach allows for the evaluation of recurrent events and facilitates the integration of different types of outcomes, including categorical, continuous and time-to-event variables.66

Building on the advantages of the WR method, Abraham et al. conducted a post hoc analysis of the pivotal trial results.67 The analysis incorporated three hierarchical components: longest survival, lowest HF rehospitalisation rate and at least a two-category improvement in the PGA score over 6 months. In all, 91 patients were included in the analysis, with 43 receiving TPNS and 48 in the control group.67 The results demonstrated a significant benefit for patients in the TPNS group compared with the control group, with a WR of 4.92 (95% confidence interval [2.27–10.63]; p<0.0001).67 The authors proposed that analysing the pivotal trial results using the WR and a hierarchical composite outcome suggests that TPNS may be clinically superior to usual care in treating patients with CSA and HF.67

To address potential bias stemming from the unblinded use of the PGA as a parameter, a sensitivity analysis was conducted.67 This analysis substituted the PGA with an objective parameter, namely ODI <4%, evaluated by a blinded assessor. Notably, the results remained consistent, demonstrating no difference when ODI was used instead of PGA.67 As mentioned previously, ODI has been associated with worse cardiac outcomes.65 The WR of 4.92 is comparable to the findings of the recently retrospectively or prospectively analysed cardiovascular trials using WR.68–71 The authors acknowledged several limitations in their analysis. First, it was a post hoc analysis, not part of the initial trial protocol or the originally intended statistical approach, which may introduce retrospective bias. Second, the potential impact of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors on the outcomes was not evaluated, leaving uncertainty about whether their use may have influenced the observed benefits of TPNS.

Conclusion

CSA is a very common comorbidity in patients with HF, yet it is often overlooked because its symptoms overlap with those of HF. Therefore, including screening for CSA in the management of HF is crucial for the early detection of this detrimental condition.

TPNS represents a safe and effective therapeutic option for patients with CSA, with proven efficacy in reducing AHI and improving LVEF, the 6-minute walk distance and QoL. Some post hoc analyses suggest a potential reduction in mortality and HF hospitalisations, which should be confirmed in future RCTs.

References

  • 1.Oldenburg O, Lamp B, Faber L et al. Sleep-disordered breathing in patients with symptomatic heart failure: a contemporary study of prevalence in and characteristics of 700 patients. Eur J Heart Fail. 2007;9:251–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejheart.2006.08.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sin DD, Fitzgerald F, Parker JD et al. Risk factors for central and obstructive sleep apnea in 450 men and women with congestive heart failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;160:1101–6. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.160.4.9903020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hanly P, Zuberi-Khokhar N. Daytime sleepiness in patients with congestive heart failure and Cheyne–Stokes respiration. Chest. 1995;107:952–8. doi: 10.1378/chest.107.4.952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bekfani T, Abraham WT. Current and future developments in the field of central sleep apnoea. Europace. 2016;18:1123–34. doi: 10.1093/europace/euv435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Costanzo MR, Khayat R, Ponikowski P et al. Mechanisms and clinical consequences of untreated central sleep apnea in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:72–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.10.025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bekfani T, Schobel C, Pietrock C et al. Heart failure and sleep-disordered breathing: susceptibility to reduced muscle strength and preclinical congestion (SICA-HF cohort). ESC Heart Fail. 2020;7:2063–70. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.12798. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Javaheri S, Dempsey JA. Central sleep apnea. Compr Physiol. 2013;3:141–63. doi: 10.1002/cphy.c110057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Brenner S, Angermann C, Jany B et al. Sleep-disordered breathing and heart failure: a dangerous liaison. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2008;18:240–7. doi: 10.1016/j.tcm.2008.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Yaffe K, Laffan AM, Harrison SL et al. Sleep-disordered breathing, hypoxia, and risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia in older women. JAMA. 2011;306:613–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bitter T, Westerheide N, Prinz C et al. Cheyne–Stokes respiration and obstructive sleep apnoea are independent risk factors for malignant ventricular arrhythmias requiring appropriate cardioverter-defibrillator therapies in patients with congestive heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:61–74. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Eckert DJ, Jordan AS, Merchia P, Malhotra A. Central sleep apnea: pathophysiology and treatment. Chest. 2007;131:595–607. doi: 10.1378/chest.06.2287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Javaheri S. Central sleep apnea–hypopnea syndrome in heart failure: prevalence, impact, and treatment. Sleep. 1996;19((Suppl)):S229–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bradley TD, Logan AG, Kimoff RJ et al. Continuous positive airway pressure for central sleep apnea and heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2025–33. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa051001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cowie MR, Woehrle H, Wegscheider K et al. Adaptive servo-ventilation for central sleep apnea in systolic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1095–105. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1506459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Voigt J, Emani S, Gupta S et al. Meta-analysis comparing outcomes of therapies for patients with central sleep apnea and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Am J Cardiol. 2020;127:73–83. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.04.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Costanzo MR, Ponikowski P, Javaheri S et al. Sustained 12 month benefit of phrenic nerve stimulation for central sleep apnea. Am J Cardiol. 2018;121:1400–8. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.02.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sagalow ES, Ananth A, Alapati R et al. Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation for central sleep apnea. Am J Cardiol. 2022;180:155–62. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.06.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Costanzo MR, Ponikowski P, Coats A et al. Phrenic nerve stimulation to treat patients with central sleep apnoea and heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2018;20:1746–54. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.1312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Naughton M, Benard D, Tam A et al. Role of hyperventilation in the pathogenesis of central sleep apneas in patients with congestive heart failure. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1993;148:330–8. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm/148.2.330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hanly P, Zuberi N, Gray R. Pathogenesis of Cheyne–Stokes respiration in patients with congestive heart failure. Relationship to arterial PCO2. Chest. 1993;104:1079–84. doi: 10.1378/chest.104.4.1079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Khayat R, Small R, Rathman L et al. Sleep-disordered breathing in heart failure: identifying and treating an important but often unrecognized comorbidity in heart failure patients. J Card Fail. 2013;19:431–44. doi: 10.1016/jcardfail201304005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Caruana-Montaldo B, Gleeson K, Zwillich CW. The control of breathing in clinical practice. Chest. 2000;117:205–25. doi: 10.1378/chest1171205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lorenzi-Filho G, Genta PR, Figueiredo AC, Inoue D. Cheyne–Stokes respiration in patients with congestive heart failure: causes and consequences. Clinics (São Paulo) 2005;60:333–44. doi: 10.1590/s1807-59322005000400012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Solin P, Bergin P, Richardson M et al. Influence of pulmonary capillary wedge pressure on central apnea in heart failure. Circulation. 1999;99:1574–9. doi: 10.1161/01cir99121574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lorenzi-Filho G, Azevedo ER, Parker JD, Bradley TD. Relationship of carbon dioxide tension in arterial blood to pulmonary wedge pressure in heart failure. Eur Respir J. 2002;19:37–40. doi: 10.1183/090319360200214502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.White LH, Bradley TD. Role of nocturnal rostral fluid shift in the pathogenesis of obstructive and central sleep apnoea. J Physiol. 2013;591:1179–93. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol2012245159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Xie A, Skatrud JB, Puleo DS et al. Apnea–hypopnea threshold for CO2 in patients with congestive heart failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;165:1245–50. doi: 10.1164/rccm200110-022OC. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Solin P, Roebuck T, Johns DP et al. Peripheral and central ventilatory responses in central sleep apnea with and without congestive heart failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;162:2194–200. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm16262002024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Javaheri S. A mechanism of central sleep apnea in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:949–54. doi: 10.1056/nejm199909233411304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Alex CG, Onal E, Lopata M. Upper airway occlusion during sleep in patients with Cheyne–Stokes respiration. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1986;133:42–5. doi: 10.1164/arrd1986133142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hall MJ, Xie A, Rutherford R et al. Cycle length of periodic breathing in patients with and without heart failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996;154:376–81. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm15428756809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Xie A, Skatrud JB, Khayat R et al. Cerebrovascular response to carbon dioxide in patients with congestive heart failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;172:371–8. doi: 10.1164/rccm200406-807OC. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Vedin O, Lam CSP, Koh AS et al. Significance of ischemic heart disease in patients with heart failure and preserved, midrange, and reduced ejection fraction: a nationwide cohort study. Circ Heart Fail. 2017;10:e003875. doi: 10.1161/circheartfailure117003875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bozkurt B, Coats AJS, Tsutsui H et al. Universal definition and classification of heart failure: a report of the Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Japanese Heart Failure Society and Writing Committee of the Universal Definition of Heart Failure: endorsed by the Canadian Heart Failure Society, Heart Failure Association of India, Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, and Chinese Heart Failure Association. Eur J Heart Fail. 2021;23:352–80. doi: 10.1002/ejhf2115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M et al. 2021 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:3599–726. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Borlaug BA. The pathophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2014;11:507–15. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio201483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Koh AS, Tay WT, Teng THK et al. A comprehensive population-based characterization of heart failure with midrange ejection fraction. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017;19:1624–34. doi: 10.1002/ejhf945. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Basner RC. Continuous positive airway pressure for obstructive sleep apnea. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1751–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMct066953. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sin DD, Logan AG, Fitzgerald FS et al. Effects of continuous positive airway pressure on cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure patients with and without Cheyne–Stokes respiration. Circulation. 2000;102:61–6. doi: 10.1161/01cir102161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Arzt M, Floras JS, Logan AG et al. Suppression of central sleep apnea by continuous positive airway pressure and transplant-free survival in heart failure: a post hoc analysis of the Canadian Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Patients with Central Sleep Apnea and Heart Failure Trial (CANPAP). Circulation. 2007;115:3173–80. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha106683482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Javaheri S. CPAP should not be used for central sleep apnea in congestive heart failure patients. J Clin Sleep Med. 2006;2:399–402. doi: 10.5664/jcsm26653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bradley TD, Holloway RM, McLaughlin PR et al. Cardiac output response to continuous positive airway pressure in congestive heart failure. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992;145:377–82. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm/1452_Pt_1377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Javaheri S, Ahmed M, Parker TJ, Brown CR. Effects of nasal O2 on sleep-related disordered breathing in ambulatory patients with stable heart failure. Sleep. 1999;22:1101–6. doi: 10.1093/sleep/2281101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Sasayama S, Izumi T, Seino Y et al. Effects of nocturnal oxygen therapy on outcome measures in patients with chronic heart failure and Cheyne–Stokes respiration. Circ J. 2006;70:1–7. doi: 10.1253/circj701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Sasayama S, Izumi T, Matsuzaki M et al. Improvement of quality of life with nocturnal oxygen therapy in heart failure patients with central sleep apnea. Circ J. 2009;73:1255–62. doi: 10.1253/circjcj-08-1210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Redline S, Redline S. Boston, MA, US: Oct 6–9, 2024. on behalf of the LOFT-HF Study Group LOFT-HF outcomes Presented at American College of Chest Physicians Annual Meeting. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Costanzo MR, Augostini R, Goldberg LR et al. Design of the remedē system pivotal trial: a prospective, randomized study in the use of respiratory rhythm management to treat central sleep apnea. J Card Fail. 2015;21:892–902. doi: 10.1016/jcardfail201508344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Abraham WT, Jagielski D, Oldenburg O et al. Phrenic nerve stimulation for the treatment of central sleep apnea JACC. Heart Fail. 2015;3:360–9. doi: 10.1016/jjchf201412013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Costanzo MR, Ponikowski P, Javaheri S et al. Transvenous neurostimulation for central sleep apnoea: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388:974–82. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30961-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Fox H, Oldenburg O, Javaheri S et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of phrenic nerve stimulation for the treatment of central sleep apnea. Sleep. 2019;42 doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsz158. zsz158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.US Food & Drug Administration remedē® System – P160039 2021. [(accessed 16 April 2021)]. https://www fda gov/medical-devices/recently-approved-devices/remeder-system-p160039
  • 52.Costanzo MR, Javaheri S, Ponikowski P et al. Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation for treatment of central sleep apnea: five-year safety and efficacy outcomes. Nat Sci Sleep. 2021;13:515–26. doi: 10.2147/nsss300713. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.US Food and Drug Administration Post-approval studies (PAS) database: P160039 / PAS001 2017. [(accessed 22 February 2021)]. https://www accessdata fda gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma_pas cfm?t_id=602722&c_id=4561
  • 54.Goldberg LR, Fox H, Stellbrink C et al. Design of the remedē System Therapy (reST) study: a prospective nonrandomized post-market study collecting clinical data on safety and effectiveness of the remedē system for the treatment of central sleep apnea. Sleep Med. 2022;100:238–43. doi: 10.1016/jsleep202208026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Nayak HM, Patel R, McKane S et al. Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation for central sleep apnea is safe and effective in patients with concomitant cardiac devices. Heart Rhythm. 2020;17:2029–36. doi: 10.1016/jhrthm202006023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Baumert M, Linz D, McKane S, Immanuel S. Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation is associated with normalization of nocturnal heart rate perturbations in patients with central sleep apnea. Sleep. 2023;46 doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsad166. zsad166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Guilleminault C, Connolly S, Winkle R et al. Cyclical variation of the heart rate in sleep apnoea syndrome Mechanisms, and usefulness of 24 h electrocardiography as a screening technique. Lancet. 1984;1:126–31. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(84)90062-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Crawford-Achour E, Roche F, Pichot V et al. Sleep-related autonomic overactivity in a general elderly population and its relationship to cardiovascular regulation. Heart Vessels. 2016;31:46–51. doi: 10.1007/s00380-014-0573-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Somers VK, Dyken ME, Clary MP. Abboud FM Sympathetic neural mechanisms in obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Invest. 1995;96:1897–904. doi: 10.1172/jci118235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Spaak J, Egri ZJ, Kubo T et al. Muscle sympathetic nerve activity during wakefulness in heart failure patients with and without sleep apnea. Hypertension. 2005;46:1327–32. doi: 10.1161/01hyp00001934974520066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Mehra R, Benjamin EJ, Shahar E et al. Association of nocturnal arrhythmias with sleep-disordered breathing: the Sleep Heart Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;173:910–6. doi: 10.1164/rccm200509-1442OC. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Monahan K, Storfer-Isser A, Mehra R et al. Triggering of nocturnal arrhythmias by sleep-disordered breathing events. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1797–804. doi: 10.1016/jjacc200906038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Baumert M, Immanuel S, McKane S, Linz D. Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation for the treatment of central sleep apnea reduces episodic hypoxemic burden. Int J Cardiol. 2023;378:89–95. doi: 10.1016/jijcard202302041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Baumert M, Immanuel SA, Stone KL et al. Composition of nocturnal hypoxaemic burden and its prognostic value for cardiovascular mortality in older community-dwelling men. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:533–41. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy838. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Oldenburg O, Wellmann B, Buchholz A et al. Nocturnal hypoxaemia is associated with increased mortality in stable heart failure patients. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:1695–703. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Pocock SJ, Ariti CA, Collier TJ, Wang D. The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:176–82. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Abraham WT, Oldenburg O, Lainscak M et al. Win ratio analysis of transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation to treat central sleep apnoea in heart failure. ESC Heart Fail. 2025;12:80–6. doi: 10.1002/ehf215074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Ferreira JP, Jhund PS, Duarte K et al. Use of the win ratio in cardiovascular trials. JACC Heart Fail. 2020;8:441–50. doi: 10.1016/jjchf202002010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Voors AA, Angermann CE, Teerlink JR et al. The SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure: a multinational randomized trial. Nat Med. 2022;28:568–74. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01659-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Maurer MS, Schwartz JH, Gundapaneni B et al. Tafamidis treatment for patients with transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1007–16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Sorajja P, Whisenant B, Hamid N et al. Transcatheter repair for patients with tricuspid regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1833–42. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2300525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Jagielski D, Ponikowski P, Augostini R et al. Transvenous stimulation of the phrenic nerve for the treatment of central sleep apnoea: 12 months’ experience with the remedē® System. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18:1386–93. doi: 10.1002/ejhf593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Fudim M, Spector AR, Costanzo MR et al. Phrenic nerve stimulation for the treatment of central sleep apnea: a pooled cohort analysis. J Clin Sleep Med. 2019;15:1747–55. doi: 10.5664/jcsm8076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Jagielski D, Kolodziej A, Westlund R et al. Phrenic nerve stimulation in patients with central sleep apnea: a singlecenter experience from pilot and pivotal trials evaluating the remedē System. Kardiol Pol. 2019;77:553–60. doi: 10.5603/KPa20190061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Oldenburg O, Costanzo MR, Germany R et al. Improving nocturnal hypoxemic burden with transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation for the treatment of central sleep apnea. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2021;14:377–85. doi: 10.1007/s12265-020-10061-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Potratz M, Sohns C, Dumitrescu D et al. Phrenic nerve stimulation improves physical performance and hypoxemia in heart failure patients with central sleep apnea. J Clin Med. 2021;10:202. doi: 10.3390/jcm10020202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Schwartz AR, Goldberg LR, McKane S, Morgenthaler TI. Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation improves central sleep apnea, sleep quality, and quality of life regardless of prior positive airway pressure treatment Sleep Breath. 2021;25:2053–63. doi: 10.1007/s11325-021-02335-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Cardiac Failure Review are provided here courtesy of Radcliffe Cardiology

RESOURCES