4.4 Article

Oximetry Alone Versus Portable Polygraphy for Sleep Apnea Screening Before Bariatric Surgery

期刊

OBESITY SURGERY
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 326-331

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-009-0055-9

关键词

Bariatric surgery; Sleep apnea; Type III portable monitor; Oximetry; Lung volume; Preoperative work-up; Oxygen desaturation

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Screening for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is recommended as part of the preoperative assessment of obese patients scheduled for bariatric surgery. The objective of this study was to compare the sensitivity of oximetry alone versus portable polygraphy in the preoperative screening for OSA. Methods Polygraphy (type III portable monitor) and oximetry data recorded as part of the preoperative assessment before bariatric surgery from 68 consecutive patients were reviewed. We compared the sensitivity of 3% or 4% desaturation index ( oximetry alone) with the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI; polygraphy) to diagnose OSA and classify the patients as normal (<10 events per hour), mild to moderate (10-30 events per hour), or severe (>30 events per hour). Results Using AHI, the prevalence of OSA (AHI>10 per hour) was 57.4%: 16.2% of the patients were classified as severe, 41.2% as mild to moderate, and 42.6% as normal. Using 3% desaturation index, 22.1% were classified as severe, 47.1% as mild to moderate, and 30.9% as normal. With 4% desaturation index, 17.6% were classified as severe, 32.4% as mild, and 50% as normal. Overall, 3% desaturation index compared to AHI yielded a 95% negative predictive value to rule out OSA (AHI>10 per hour) and a 100% sensitivity (0.73 positive predictive value) to detect severe OSA (AHI>30 per hour). Conclusions Using oximetry with 3% desaturation index as a screening tool for OSA could allow us to rule out significant OSA in almost a third of the patients and to detect patients with severe OSA. This cheap and widely available technique could accelerate preoperative work-up of these patients.

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

4.4
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