Chest · 2007
Respiratory polygraphy with actigraphy in the diagnosis of sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
García-Díaz Emilio, Quintana-Gallego Esther, Ruiz Aránzazu, Carmona-Bernal Carmen, Sánchez-Armengol Ángeles, Botebol-Benhamou Georgina, Capote Francisco
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility and reliability of a respiratory polygraphy (RP) device with actigraphy (Apnoescreen II; Erich Jaeger GMBH & CoKg; Wuerzburg, Germany) in the diagnosis of sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (SAHS).
DESIGN: A prospective randomized study with blinded analysis.
PATIENTS: Sixty-two patients with suspected SAHS.
MEASUREMENTS: the following two RP studies were performed: one in the sleep laboratory (sleep laboratory RP [LRP]), simultaneously with polysomnography; and the other at home (home RP [HRP]). To study the interobserver reliability of RP, two manual analyses were carried out by two different researchers.
RESULTS: In LRP, when the respiratory disturbance index was calculated using the total sleep time estimated by actigraphy (RDI) as a denominator, the sensitivity ranged between 94.6% and 100%, and the specificity between 88% and 96.7% for the different cutoff points of the apnea-hypopnea indexes studied. When the respiratory disturbance index was calculated according to the total recording time (RDITRT), the sensitivity was slightly lower (91.6 to 96.9%) and the specificity was similar (92 to 96.7%). In HRP, the sensitivity of the RDI ranged between 83.8% and 95.8%, and the specificity between 92% and 100%, whereas, when the RDITRT was used, the sensitivity was between 83.8% and 87.5%, and the specificity was between 94.7% and 100%. With regard to interobserver reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficient for the RDI of the two analyses of the RP was 0.99 for both LPR and HPR.
CONCLUSION: HPR is an effective and reliable technique for the diagnosis of SAHS, although it is less sensitive than LRP. Wrist actigraphy improves the results of HRP only slightly.
DESIGN: A prospective randomized study with blinded analysis.
PATIENTS: Sixty-two patients with suspected SAHS.
MEASUREMENTS: the following two RP studies were performed: one in the sleep laboratory (sleep laboratory RP [LRP]), simultaneously with polysomnography; and the other at home (home RP [HRP]). To study the interobserver reliability of RP, two manual analyses were carried out by two different researchers.
RESULTS: In LRP, when the respiratory disturbance index was calculated using the total sleep time estimated by actigraphy (RDI) as a denominator, the sensitivity ranged between 94.6% and 100%, and the specificity between 88% and 96.7% for the different cutoff points of the apnea-hypopnea indexes studied. When the respiratory disturbance index was calculated according to the total recording time (RDITRT), the sensitivity was slightly lower (91.6 to 96.9%) and the specificity was similar (92 to 96.7%). In HRP, the sensitivity of the RDI ranged between 83.8% and 95.8%, and the specificity between 92% and 100%, whereas, when the RDITRT was used, the sensitivity was between 83.8% and 87.5%, and the specificity was between 94.7% and 100%. With regard to interobserver reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficient for the RDI of the two analyses of the RP was 0.99 for both LPR and HPR.
CONCLUSION: HPR is an effective and reliable technique for the diagnosis of SAHS, although it is less sensitive than LRP. Wrist actigraphy improves the results of HRP only slightly.