4.6 Article

Vigilance troubles in Parkinson's disease:: A subjective and objective polysomnographic study

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 448-453

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2005.12.002

关键词

Parkinson's disease; sleep; vigilance troubles; excessive daytime sleepiness; unintended sleep episodes; Epworth Sleepiness Scale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: To assess the prevalence of vigilance disorders in Parkinson's disease patients, relate the observed phenomena to potential causes and confirm these troubles with polysomnographic analysis. Patients and methods: A questionnaire was used to gather information on demographic data, previous and current treatments, disease characteristics, sleep and vigilance troubles. Somnolence was measured using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). Nocturnal polysomnography (PSG) and multiple sleep latency tests (MSLT) were performed for a sample of parkinsonian patients. Results: Two hundred twenty-two parkinsonian patients completed the questionnaire, and 36 patients had objective analyses. Of the patients, 43.2% had an ESS score > 10, and 28.4% reported somnolence in the hour after taking dopaminergic drugs, whereas 6.8% reported unintended sleep episodes. In view of questionnaire data, these vigilance disorders may be partly explained not only by the impact of nocturnal sleep disorders (e.g. sleep apnea syndromes) but also by dopaminergic therapy (especially with dopaminergic agonists). With PSG and MSLT results, we have shown a significant correlation between mean sleep latency and ESS score. Patients with unintended sleep episodes have severe sleepiness in MSLT compared with others patients. Conclusions: Vigilance disorders are frequently observed in Parkinson's disease. We recommend informing patients of the risk of occurrence of such conditions, notably for patients with unintended sleep episodes and with sleepiness in the hour after taking dopaminergic drugs. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. 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