4.1 Article

High Slow-Wave Sleep and Low-Light Sleep: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is Not Likely to be a Primary Sleep Disorder

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 207-212

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/WNP.0b013e3181a1841b

Keywords

Chronic fatigue syndrome; NREM sleep; Primary sleep disorder; Affective symptoms

Funding

  1. National Funding for Scientific Research, Belgium
  2. SOMALCPE
  3. Ministry of Health of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The status of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is still under debate. Mainstream views still often consider it as in undetected primary sleep disorder or as the psychosomatic expression of a related anxiety or depression syndrome. Both primary sleep disorder and CFS are often related to unrefreshing sleep and affective daytime symptoms. The Present Study compares nonrapid eye movement sleep distribution between patients with a primary sleep disorder and pure US patients without sleep or mood disorders. Intensity measures of affective symptoms are also analyzed. Sleep variables of 32 pure CFS (mean age, 41 9 +/- 8.7 years; 25 women), 30 Sleep Apnea Hypopnea Syndrome patients (mean age, 43.7 +/- 6.7 years; 13 women), and 14 healthy controls (mean age, 40.2 +/- 7.6 years; 9 women) were compared. Related affective symptoms were assessed using the self-reported Zung anxiety and depression scales. The study confirms previous reports on increased slow-wave sleep in CFS patients. Both patient groups similar sleep duration and efficiency. Sleep efficiency was lower in both patient groups compared with controls. CFS patients showed a higher microarousal index than controls. Anxiety, but not depression symptoms were more intense in the US group. The distribution of nourapid eye movement sleep in US differs sizeably from what call be observed in a primary sleep disorder.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available