Diagnostic Accuracy of a Portable Electromyography and Electrocardiography Device to Measure Sleep Bruxism in a Sleep Apnea Population: A Comparative Study.

IF 2.1 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clocks & Sleep Pub Date : 2023-11-20 DOI:10.3390/clockssleep5040047
Rosana Cid-Verdejo, Adelaida A Domínguez Gordillo, Eleuterio A Sánchez-Romero, Ignacio Ardizone García, Francisco J Martínez Orozco
{"title":"Diagnostic Accuracy of a Portable Electromyography and Electrocardiography Device to Measure Sleep Bruxism in a Sleep Apnea Population: A Comparative Study.","authors":"Rosana Cid-Verdejo, Adelaida A Domínguez Gordillo, Eleuterio A Sánchez-Romero, Ignacio Ardizone García, Francisco J Martínez Orozco","doi":"10.3390/clockssleep5040047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The gold standard for diagnosing sleep bruxism (SB) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is polysomnography (PSG). However, a final hypermotor muscle activity often occurs after apnea episodes, which can confuse the diagnosis of SB when using portable electromyography (EMG) devices. This study aimed to compare the number of SB episodes obtained from PSG with manual analysis by a sleep expert, and from a manual and automatic analysis of an EMG and electrocardiography (EKG) device, in a population with suspected OSA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-two subjects underwent a polysomnographic study with simultaneous recording with the EMG-EKG device. SB episodes and SB index measured with both tools and analyzed manually and automatically were compared. Masticatory muscle activity was scored according to published criteria. Patients were segmented by severity of OSA (mild, moderate, severe) following the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) criteria. ANOVA and the Bland-Altman plot were used to quantify the agreement between both methods. The concordance was calculated through the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On average, the total events of SB per night in the PSG study were (8.41 ± 0.85), lower than the one obtained with EMG-EKG manual (14.64 ± 0.76) and automatic (22.68 ± 16.02) analysis. The mean number of SB episodes decreases from the non-OSA group to the OSA group with both PSG (5.93 ± 8.64) and EMG-EKG analyses (automatic = 22.47 ± 18.07, manual = 13.93 ± 11.08). However, this decrease was minor in proportion compared to the automatic EMG-EKG analysis mode (from 23.14 to 22.47). The ICC based on the number of SB episodes in the segmented sample by severity degree of OSA along the three tools shows a moderate correlation in the non-OSA (0.61) and mild OSA (0.53) groups. However, it is poorly correlated in the moderate (0.24) and severe (0.23) OSA groups: the EMG-EKG automatic analysis measures 14.27 units more than PSG. The results of the manual EMG-EKG analysis improved this correlation but are not good enough.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results obtained in the PSG manual analysis and those obtained by the EMG-EKG device with automatic and manual analysis for the diagnosis of SB are acceptable but only in patients without OSA or with mild OSA. In patients with moderate or severe OSA, SB diagnosis with portable electromyography devices can be confused due to apneas, and further study is needed to investigate this.</p>","PeriodicalId":33568,"journal":{"name":"Clocks & Sleep","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10660473/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clocks & Sleep","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/clockssleep5040047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The gold standard for diagnosing sleep bruxism (SB) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is polysomnography (PSG). However, a final hypermotor muscle activity often occurs after apnea episodes, which can confuse the diagnosis of SB when using portable electromyography (EMG) devices. This study aimed to compare the number of SB episodes obtained from PSG with manual analysis by a sleep expert, and from a manual and automatic analysis of an EMG and electrocardiography (EKG) device, in a population with suspected OSA.

Methods: Twenty-two subjects underwent a polysomnographic study with simultaneous recording with the EMG-EKG device. SB episodes and SB index measured with both tools and analyzed manually and automatically were compared. Masticatory muscle activity was scored according to published criteria. Patients were segmented by severity of OSA (mild, moderate, severe) following the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) criteria. ANOVA and the Bland-Altman plot were used to quantify the agreement between both methods. The concordance was calculated through the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results: On average, the total events of SB per night in the PSG study were (8.41 ± 0.85), lower than the one obtained with EMG-EKG manual (14.64 ± 0.76) and automatic (22.68 ± 16.02) analysis. The mean number of SB episodes decreases from the non-OSA group to the OSA group with both PSG (5.93 ± 8.64) and EMG-EKG analyses (automatic = 22.47 ± 18.07, manual = 13.93 ± 11.08). However, this decrease was minor in proportion compared to the automatic EMG-EKG analysis mode (from 23.14 to 22.47). The ICC based on the number of SB episodes in the segmented sample by severity degree of OSA along the three tools shows a moderate correlation in the non-OSA (0.61) and mild OSA (0.53) groups. However, it is poorly correlated in the moderate (0.24) and severe (0.23) OSA groups: the EMG-EKG automatic analysis measures 14.27 units more than PSG. The results of the manual EMG-EKG analysis improved this correlation but are not good enough.

Conclusions: The results obtained in the PSG manual analysis and those obtained by the EMG-EKG device with automatic and manual analysis for the diagnosis of SB are acceptable but only in patients without OSA or with mild OSA. In patients with moderate or severe OSA, SB diagnosis with portable electromyography devices can be confused due to apneas, and further study is needed to investigate this.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
便携式肌电图和心电图仪在睡眠呼吸暂停人群中测量睡眠磨牙的诊断准确性:一项比较研究。
背景:诊断睡眠磨牙症(SB)和阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)的金标准是多导睡眠图(PSG)。然而,最终的过度运动肌肉活动通常发生在呼吸暂停发作后,这在使用便携式肌电图(EMG)设备时可能会混淆SB的诊断。本研究旨在比较疑似OSA患者的PSG与睡眠专家手工分析的SB发作次数,以及手工和自动分析的EMG和心电图(EKG)设备。方法:对22名受试者进行多导睡眠图研究,同时用肌电心电图仪记录。用这两种工具分别测量SB发作数和SB指数,并进行人工和自动比较分析。根据公布的标准对咀嚼肌活动进行评分。按照美国睡眠医学会(AASM)的标准,将患者按照OSA的严重程度(轻度、中度、重度)进行分类。方差分析和Bland-Altman图用于量化两种方法之间的一致性。通过类内相关系数(ICC)计算一致性。结果:PSG组平均每晚SB总事件数为(8.41±0.85)次,低于手动(14.64±0.76)和自动(22.68±16.02)分析。经PSG(5.93±8.64)和EMG-EKG(自动= 22.47±18.07,手动= 13.93±11.08)分析,平均SB发作次数从非OSA组减少到OSA组。然而,与自动肌电-心电图分析模式相比,这种下降比例很小(从23.14降至22.47)。根据OSA严重程度分段样本中SB发作次数的ICC沿三个工具显示,非OSA组(0.61)和轻度OSA组(0.53)之间存在中度相关性。然而,在中度(0.24)和重度(0.23)OSA组中相关性较差:肌电心电图自动分析比PSG多14.27个单位。手工肌电心电图分析的结果改善了这种相关性,但还不够好。结论:PSG手工分析和肌电心电图自动和手工分析诊断SB的结果均可接受,但仅适用于无OSA或轻度OSA患者。在中度或重度OSA患者中,便携式肌电仪的SB诊断可能因呼吸暂停而混淆,需要进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clocks & Sleep
Clocks & Sleep Multiple-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Disrupted Circadian Rhythms and Substance Use Disorders: A Narrative Review. Violet Light Effects on the Circadian Rest-Activity Rhythm and the Visual System. Effectiveness of Enriched Milk with Ashwagandha Extract and Tryptophan for Improving Subjective Sleep Quality in Adults with Sleep Problems: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial. The Impact of Lunch Timing on Nap Quality. Generative Models for Periodicity Detection in Noisy Signals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1