4.6 Article

Manipulation of skin temperature improves nocturnal sleep in narcolepsy

期刊

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2008.143610

关键词

-

资金

  1. The Netherlands Organization [SOW 014-90-001, 016.025.041, 916.56.103]
  2. EU FP6 Sensation Integrated Project [FP6-507231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Besides excessive daytime sleepiness, disturbed nocturnal sleep is a major complaint of patients with narcolepsy. Previously, alterations in skin temperature regulation in narcoleptic patients have been shown to be related to increased sleepiness. This study tests the hypothesis that direct control of nocturnal skin temperature might be applied to improve the disturbed sleep of narcoleptic patients. Methods: Participants were eight patients (five males) diagnosed as having narcolepsy with cataplexy according to the ICSD-2 criteria, mean (SD) age 28.6 (6.4) years, range 18-35 years. During two nights, sleep was recorded polysomnographically while proximal and distal skin temperature were manipulated using a comfortable thermosuit that induced skin temperature to cycle slowly with an amplitude of only 0.4 degrees C within the comfortable range normally observed during sleep. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the effect of skin temperature manipulation on the probability of occurrence of different sleep stages and nocturnal wakefulness. Results: Proximal skin warming significantly suppressed wakefulness and enhanced slow wave sleep (SWS). In contrast, distal skin warming enhanced wakefulness and stage 1 sleep at the cost of SWS and REM sleep. The optimal combination of proximal skin warming and distal skin cooling led to a 160% increase in SWS, a 50% increase in REM sleep and a 68% decrease in wakefulness, compared with the least beneficial combination of proximal skin cooling and distal skin warming. Interpretation: Subtle skin temperature manipulations under controlled conditions significantly improved the typical nocturnal sleep problems in narcolepsy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据