Comparing a combination of validated questionnaires and level III portable monitor with polysomnography to diagnose and exclude sleep apnea

比较经验证的问卷调查和三级便携式监测仪与多导睡眠图在诊断和排除睡眠呼吸暂停方面的效果

阅读:1

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Questionnaires have been validated as screening tools in adult populations at risk for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Portable monitors (PM) have gained acceptance for confirmation of OSA in some patients with a high pretest probability of the disorder. We evaluated the combined diagnostic utility of 3 validated questionnaires and a Level III PM in the diagnosis and exclusion of OSA, as compared with in-laboratory polysomnography (PSG) derived apnea hypopnea index (AHI). METHODS: Consecutive patients referred to the Sleep Disorders Clinic completed 3 testing components: (1) 3 questionnaires (Berlin, STOP-Bang, and Sleep Apnea Clinical Score [SACS]); (2) Level III at-home PM (MediByte) study; and (3) Level I in-laboratory PSG. The utility of individual questionnaires, the Level III device alone, and the combination of questionnaires and the Level III device were compared with the PSG. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight patients participated in the study (84M, 44F), mean ± SD age 50 ± 12.3years, BMI 31 ± 6.6 kg/m(2). At a PSG threshold AHI = 10, the PM derived respiratory disturbance index (RDI) had a sensitivity and specificity of 79% and 86%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for the other screening tools were: Berlin 88%, 25%; STOP-Bang 90%, 25%; SACS 33%, 75%. The sensitivity and specificity at a PSG AHI = 15 were: PM 77%, 95%; Berlin 91%, 28%; STOP-Bang 93%, 28%; SACS 35%, 78%. CONCLUSIONS: Questionnaires alone, possibly given a reliance on sleepiness as a symptom, cannot reliably rule out the presence of OSA. Objective physiological measurement is critical for the diagnosis and exclusion of OSA.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。