4.6 Article

Daytime sleep state misperception in a tertiary sleep centre population

Journal

SLEEP MEDICINE
Volume 69, Issue -, Pages 78-84

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2019.12.026

Keywords

Narcolepsy; Obstructive sleep apnea; Dreams; Excessive daytime sleepiness; Multiple sleep latency test

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study objectives: Sleep state misperception is common in various sleep disorders, especially in chronic insomnia with a prevalence ranging between 9-50%. Most prior studies used nocturnal polysomnography (PSG) for the identification of sleep state misperception during nighttime. Our objective was to assess sleep state misperception during daytime in people with sleep disorders with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). Methods: In this prospective observational study, we assessed the occurrence of, and factors influencing sleep state misperception in consecutive patients undergoing a routine multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) in a tertiary sleep-wake centre included between 2014 and 2017. Mixed models were applied to assess the influence of patients' clinical data on sleep state perception. Results: People with narcolepsy type 1 (NT1, n = 33) and type 2 (NT2, n = 14), idiopathic hypersomnia (IH, n = 56), obstructive sleep apnea (OSA, n = 31) and insufficient sleep syndrome (ISS, n = 31) were included. The prevalence of both classical and reverse sleep state misperception did not differ between the sleep disorders (mean 25%, range 8-37%) after correction for sleep stage, sleep onset latency and age. Longer sleep onset latency and reaching only non-rapid eye movement (REM) sleep stage 1 were significant predictors for classical sleep state misperception. Conclusions: Sleep state misperception is common in people with NT1 and NT2, IH, OSA, and ISS. Classical sleep state misperception is more frequent in patients with longer sleep onset latencies who only reach non-REM sleep stage 1 during a nap. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available