Study of the Agreement of the Apnea–Hypopnea Index Measured Simultaneously by Pressure Transducer via Respiratory Polygraphy and by Thermistor via Polysomnography in Real Time with the Same Individuals

Bich-Ty Tran-Thi, Minh Quach-Thieu, Bao-Ngoc Le-Tran, Duy Nguyen-Duc, Nguyen Tran-Hiep, Thao Nguyen-Thi, Yen-Linh Nguyen-Ngoc, Anh Nguyen-Tuan, Tram Tang-Thi-Thao, T. Nguyen-Van, S. Duong-Quy
{"title":"Study of the Agreement of the Apnea–Hypopnea Index Measured Simultaneously by Pressure Transducer via Respiratory Polygraphy and by Thermistor via Polysomnography in Real Time with the Same Individuals","authors":"Bich-Ty Tran-Thi, Minh Quach-Thieu, Bao-Ngoc Le-Tran, Duy Nguyen-Duc, Nguyen Tran-Hiep, Thao Nguyen-Thi, Yen-Linh Nguyen-Ngoc, Anh Nguyen-Tuan, Tram Tang-Thi-Thao, T. Nguyen-Van, S. Duong-Quy","doi":"10.3390/ohbm3020004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common disorder and can lead to many severe complications; however, the majority of patients remain undiagnosed. Although polysomnography (PSG) remains the gold standard of diagnosis, it is usually uncomfortable and costly for patients. Purpose: The study aims to assess the agreement of the AHI measured by polygraphy (PG) (Philips Alice NightOne) with that of polysomnography (Philips Alice PDx) simultaneously recorded in-lab. Methods: A total of 11 voluntary participants over 18 years old underwent one night of simultaneous PSG and PG recording in sleep laboratories. Studied parameters (AHI, OAI, CAI, MAI, and minSpO2) were analyzed and reported by the Philips Sleepware G3 software. PSG and PG results were scored by qualified staff. Results: In terms of AHI, the mean AHI derived from PG was different from that of PSG—7.78 and 2.37 events/h, respectively. A Bland–Altman analysis of the AHI on PSG versus PG showed a mean difference of 5.41; limits of agreement (equal to ±2 standard deviations) were from −6.74 to 17.56. The Bland–Altman analysis showed a slight difference between the two methods, with a mean difference of −0.12 events/h in CAI, 1.35 events/h in OAI, and 0.42 events/h in MAI. Conclusions: In the population with a low suspicion of OSA, the PG showed a low agreement with the simultaneous PSG in the sleep lab. Therefore, PG should only be used as a screening method. Further studies with sufficient sensors in the expanded populations of OSA are needed.","PeriodicalId":73883,"journal":{"name":"Journal of otorhinolaryngology, hearing and balance medicine","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of otorhinolaryngology, hearing and balance medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ohbm3020004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common disorder and can lead to many severe complications; however, the majority of patients remain undiagnosed. Although polysomnography (PSG) remains the gold standard of diagnosis, it is usually uncomfortable and costly for patients. Purpose: The study aims to assess the agreement of the AHI measured by polygraphy (PG) (Philips Alice NightOne) with that of polysomnography (Philips Alice PDx) simultaneously recorded in-lab. Methods: A total of 11 voluntary participants over 18 years old underwent one night of simultaneous PSG and PG recording in sleep laboratories. Studied parameters (AHI, OAI, CAI, MAI, and minSpO2) were analyzed and reported by the Philips Sleepware G3 software. PSG and PG results were scored by qualified staff. Results: In terms of AHI, the mean AHI derived from PG was different from that of PSG—7.78 and 2.37 events/h, respectively. A Bland–Altman analysis of the AHI on PSG versus PG showed a mean difference of 5.41; limits of agreement (equal to ±2 standard deviations) were from −6.74 to 17.56. The Bland–Altman analysis showed a slight difference between the two methods, with a mean difference of −0.12 events/h in CAI, 1.35 events/h in OAI, and 0.42 events/h in MAI. Conclusions: In the population with a low suspicion of OSA, the PG showed a low agreement with the simultaneous PSG in the sleep lab. Therefore, PG should only be used as a screening method. Further studies with sufficient sensors in the expanded populations of OSA are needed.
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
同一个体呼吸测谎压力传感器与热敏电阻测多导睡眠仪同时测量呼吸暂停-低呼吸指数的一致性研究
背景:阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)是一种常见的疾病,可导致许多严重的并发症;然而,大多数患者仍未得到诊断。虽然多导睡眠图(PSG)仍然是诊断的黄金标准,但它通常对患者来说是不舒服和昂贵的。目的:本研究旨在评估polygraphy (PG) (Philips Alice NightOne)测量的AHI与polysomnography (Philips Alice PDx)同时在实验室记录的AHI的一致性。方法:11名年龄在18岁以上的志愿者在睡眠实验室进行了1晚的PSG和PG同步记录。研究参数(AHI、OAI、CAI、MAI和minSpO2)由Philips Sleepware G3软件分析并报告。PSG和PG结果由合格的工作人员评分。结果:在AHI方面,PG组与psg组的平均AHI差异较大,分别为7.78和2.37 events/h。Bland-Altman分析PSG与PG的AHI平均差异为5.41;一致性限(等于±2个标准差)为−6.74至17.56。Bland-Altman分析显示两种方法之间有轻微差异,CAI的平均差异为- 0.12事件/h, OAI的平均差异为1.35事件/h, MAI的平均差异为0.42事件/h。结论:在低怀疑OSA的人群中,PG与睡眠实验室同步PSG的一致性较低。因此,PG只能作为一种筛选方法。需要在扩大的OSA人群中进一步研究足够的传感器。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cardiovascular Risk Profile in Ménière’s Disease and Posterior Circulation Infarction: A Comparative Study Orthopedic Surgery Position Enhances Safety in Adults with Cervical Rigidity during Cochlear Implantation Towards Comprehensive Newborn Hearing and Genetic Screening in Russia: Perspectives of Implementation The Intelligibility Benefits of Modern Computer-Synthesized Speech for Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners in Non-Ideal Listening Conditions Comparison of Halmágyi–Curthoys Head Impulse (Thrust) Test with Romberg’s Test in Detection of Vestibular Hypofunctioning in Vertigo Patients
×
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