Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2019
Detecting central sleep apnea in adult patients using WatchPAT-a multicenter validation study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pillar Giora, Berall Murray, Berry Richard, Etzioni Tamar, Shrater Noam, Hwang Dennis, Ibrahim Marai, Litman Efrat, Manthena Prasanth, Koren-Morag Nira, Rama Anil, Schnall Robert P, Sheffy Koby, Spiegel Rebecca, Tauman Riva, Penzel Thomas
Аннотация
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of WatchPAT (WP-Itamar-Medical, Caesarea, Israel) enhanced with a novel systolic upstroke analysis coupled with respiratory movement analysis derived from a dedicated snoring and body position (SBP) sensor, to enable automated algorithmic differentiation between central sleep apnea (CSA) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) compared with simultaneous in-lab sleep studies with polysomnography (PSG).
METHODS: Eighty-four patients with suspected sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) underwent simultaneous WP and PSG studies in 11 sleep centers. PSG scoring was blinded to the automatically analyzed WP data.
RESULTS: Overall WP apnea-hypopnea index (AHI; mean ± SD) was 25.2 ± 21.3 (range 0.2-101) versus PSG AHI 24.4 ± 21.2 (range 0-110) (p = 0.514), and correlation was 0.87 (p < 0.001). Using a threshold of AHI ≥ 15, the sensitivity and specificity of WP versus PSG for diagnosing sleep apnea were 85% and 70% respectively and agreement was 79% (kappa = 0.867). WP central AHI (AHIc) was 4.2 ± 7.7 (range 0-38) versus PSG AHIc 5.9 ± 11.8 (range 0-63) (p = 0.034), while correlation was 0.90 (p < 0.001). Using a threshold of AHI ≥ 15, the sensitivity and specificity of WP versus PSG for diagnosing CSA were 67% and 100% respectively with agreement of 95% (kappa = 0.774), and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) area under the curve of 0.866, (p < 0.01). Using a threshold of AHI ≥ 10 showed comparable overall sleep apnea and CSA diagnostic accuracies.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that WP can accurately detect overall AHI and effectively differentiate between CSA and OSA.
METHODS: Eighty-four patients with suspected sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) underwent simultaneous WP and PSG studies in 11 sleep centers. PSG scoring was blinded to the automatically analyzed WP data.
RESULTS: Overall WP apnea-hypopnea index (AHI; mean ± SD) was 25.2 ± 21.3 (range 0.2-101) versus PSG AHI 24.4 ± 21.2 (range 0-110) (p = 0.514), and correlation was 0.87 (p < 0.001). Using a threshold of AHI ≥ 15, the sensitivity and specificity of WP versus PSG for diagnosing sleep apnea were 85% and 70% respectively and agreement was 79% (kappa = 0.867). WP central AHI (AHIc) was 4.2 ± 7.7 (range 0-38) versus PSG AHIc 5.9 ± 11.8 (range 0-63) (p = 0.034), while correlation was 0.90 (p < 0.001). Using a threshold of AHI ≥ 15, the sensitivity and specificity of WP versus PSG for diagnosing CSA were 67% and 100% respectively with agreement of 95% (kappa = 0.774), and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) area under the curve of 0.866, (p < 0.01). Using a threshold of AHI ≥ 10 showed comparable overall sleep apnea and CSA diagnostic accuracies.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that WP can accurately detect overall AHI and effectively differentiate between CSA and OSA.