4.7 Article

Respiratory polygraphy with actigraphy in the diagnosis of sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome

期刊

CHEST
卷 131, 期 3, 页码 725-732

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1378/chest.06-1604

关键词

actigraphy; diagnosis; home sleep study; polysomnography; portable devices; sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the utility and reliability of a respiratory polygraphy (RP) device with actigraphy (Apnoescreen H; Erich Jaeger GMBH & CoKg; Wuerzburg, Germany) in the diagnosis of sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (SAHS). Design: A prospective randomized study with blinded analysis. Patients: Sixty-two patients with suspected SAHS. Measurements: the following two RP studies were performed: one in the sleep laboratory (sleep laboratory RP [LRP]), simultaneously with polysomnography; and the other at home (home RP [HRP]). To study the interobserver reliability of RP, two manual analyses were carried out by two different researchers. Results: In LRP, when the respiratory disturbance index was calculated using the total sleep time estimated by actigraphy (RDI) as a denominator, the sensitivity ranged between 94.6% and 100%, and the specificity between 88% and 96.7% for the different cutoff points of the apnea-hypopnea indexes studied. When the respiratory disturbance index was calculated according to the total recording time (RDITRT), the sensitivity was slightly lower (91.6 to 96.9%) and the specificity was similar (92 to 96.7%). In HRP, the sensitivity of the RDI ranged between 83.8% and 95.8%, and the specificity between 92% and 100%, whereas, when the RDITRT was used, the sensitivity was between 83.8% and 87.5%, and the specificity was between 94.7% and 100%. With regard to interobserver reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficient for the RDI of the two analyses of the RP was 0.99 for both LPR and HPR. Conclusion: HPR is an effective and reliable technique for the diagnosis of SAUS, although it is less sensitive than LRP. Wrist actigraphy improves the results of HRP only slightly.

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

4.7
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