Background-The purpose of this study was to determine the role of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) as an independent risk factor for the development of left ventricular diastolic abnormalities. Moreover, we tested the hypothesis that nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) improves such alterations in OSAS patients by eliminating apneic events. Methods and Results-In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study, 27 consecutive newly diagnosed middle-aged OSAS men with neither controllable factors nor conditions affecting left ventricular diastolic function and 15 healthy control subjects were selected. OSAS patients were randomized to 12 weeks on sham nCPAP and 12 weeks on effective nCPAP application. Echocardiographic parameters, blood pressure recordings, and urinary catecholamine levels were obtained at baseline and after both treatment modalities. At baseline, an abnormal left ventricular filling pattern was present in 15 of the 27 OSAS patients and only in 3 of the 15 control subjects (Pϭ0.020). Impaired relaxation was by far the most common abnormal pattern in both groups (11 and 3 patients, respectively). In OSAS patients, 12 weeks on effective nCPAP induced a significant increase in E/A ratio (PϽ0.01), as well as reductions in mitral deceleration (PϽ0.01) and isovolumic relaxation (PϽ0.05) times. Conclusions-OSAS

Severe OSA is independently associated with PH in direct relationship with disease severity and presence of diastolic dysfunction. Application of CPAP reduces pulmonary systolic pressure levels.

OSAHS patients with normal resting left ventricular systolic function and no hypertension had a worse cardiac response to exercise than healthy subjects. In these patients, 3 months of CPAP improved both Qt and SV responses to exercise.

The overall goal of this study was to assess the effectiveness of two different types of intervention aimed at improving written argumentative synthesis by integrating conflicting information from different sources. The participants were 114 undergraduate psychology students. Although the aims of both modalities were the same, the intervention with each group was different. More specifically, both interventions combined the use of a graphical guide that included critical questions with collaborative practice in pairs, but one of them also included explicit instruction in which the processes involved in performing the task were modelled and explained. Before and after the interventions, the students in both intervention groups produced syntheses while working individually without the help of the guide. The degree of integration of conflicting information in the individual products, the number of arguments selected from the sources and the students' perceptions of the utility of the intervention were assessed. The results indicate that only students who received additional explicit instruction showed an improved ability to integrate conflicting information and increased the number of arguments they selected from the sources. Furthermore, it was found that students in that group tended to perceive the utility of the intervention more positively than those in the other group.