4.6 Review

Quantitative electroencephalogram measures in adult obstructive sleep apnea - Potential biomarkers of neurobehavioural functioning

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE REVIEWS
卷 36, 期 -, 页码 29-42

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2016.10.003

关键词

Quantitative EEG analysis; Power spectral analysis; Signal processing; Sleep disordered breathing; Cognition; Performance

资金

  1. NeuroSleep, Centre of Research Excellence in Interdisciplinary Sleep Health - Australian National Health & Medical Research Council (NHRMC) [APP1060992]
  2. CIRUS, Centre for Sleep and Chronobiology at the Woolcock Institute of Medial Research [APP571421]
  3. Dora Lush Priority NHMRC Scholarship
  4. Australian Postgraduate Award
  5. Australian NHMRC Research Fellowships

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) results in significantly impaired cognitive functioning and increased daytime sleepiness in some patients leading to increased risk of motor vehicle and workplace accidents and reduced productivity. Clinicians often face difficulty in identifying which patients are at risk of neurobehavioural dysfunction due to wide inter-individual variability, and disparity between symptoms and conventional metrics of disease severity such as the apnea hypopnea index. Quantitative electroencephalogram (EEG) measures are determinants of awake neurobehavioural function in healthy subjects. However, the potential value of quantitative EEG (qEEG) measurements as biomarkers of neurobehavioural function in patients with OSA has not been examined. This review summarises the existing literature examining qEEG in OSA patients including changes in brain activity during wake and sleep states, in relation to daytime sleepiness, cognitive impairment and OSA treatment. It will speculate on the mechanisms which may underlie changes in EEG activity and discuss the potential utility of qEEG as a clinically useful predictor of neurobehavioural function in OSA. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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