Apnea and hypopnea characterization using esophageal pressure, respiratory inductance plethysmography, and suprasternal pressure: a comparative study
Language English Country Germany Media print-electronic
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article
Grant support
1
CSRD VA - United States
PubMed
30729405
DOI
10.1007/s11325-019-01793-8
PII: 10.1007/s11325-019-01793-8
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Polysomnography, Respiratory effort, Sleep apnea characterization, Suprasternal pressure,
- MeSH
- Esophagus physiopathology MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Respiratory Mechanics physiology MeSH
- Sleep Apnea, Obstructive classification diagnosis physiopathology MeSH
- Plethysmography methods MeSH
- Polysomnography methods MeSH
- Aged, 80 and over MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Pressure MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged, 80 and over MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
OBJECTIVES: To determine if recording of suprasternal pressure (SSP) can classify apneas and hypopneas as reliably as respiratory inductance plethysmography (RIP) belts and to compare the two methods to classification with esophageal pressure (Pes), the reference method for assessing respiratory effort. METHODS: In addition to polysomnographic recordings that included Pes, SSP was recorded. Recordings from 32 patients (25 males, mean age 66.7 ± 15.3 years, and mean BMI 30.1 ± 4.5 kg/m2) were used to compare the classification of detected apneas and hypopneas by three methods of respiratory effort evaluation (Pes, RIP belts, and SSP). Signals were analyzed randomly and independently from each other. All recordings were analyzed according to AASM guidelines. RESULTS: Using Pes as a reference for apnea characterization, the Cohen kappa (κ) was 0.93 for SSP and 0.87 for the RIP. The sensitivity/specificity of SSP was 97.0%/96.9% for obstructive, 93.9%/98.3% for central, and 94.9%/97.9% for mixed apneas. The sensitivity/specificity of the RIP was 97.4%/91.9% for obstructive, 87.5%/97.9% for central, and 85.6%/96.6% for mixed apneas. For hypopnea characterization using the Pes as a reference, κ was 0.92 for SSP and 0.86 for the RIP. The sensitivity/specificity of SSP was 99.7%/97.6% for obstructive and 97.6%/99.7% for central. The sensitivity/specificity of the RIP was 99.8%/81.1% for obstructive and 81.1%/99.8% for central. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the excellent agreement in the detection of respiratory effort between SSP, RIP belts, and Pes signals. Thus, we conclude that apnea and hypopnea characterization in adults with SSP is a reliable method.
Interdisciplinary Sleep Medicine Center Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin Berlin Germany
International Clinical Research Center Saint Anne's University Hospital Brno Brno Czech Republic
See more in PubMed
Sleep Med. 2002 Mar;3(2):163-73 PubMed
Chest. 1999 Sep;116(3):660-6 PubMed
J Clin Sleep Med. 2012 Oct 15;8(5):597-619 PubMed
Sleep. 1990 Aug;13(4):369-70 PubMed
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997 Sep;156(3 Pt 1):881-5 PubMed
Sleep. 1995 Oct;18(8):651-8 PubMed
Sleep. 2002 Nov 1;25(7):753-7 PubMed
Arch Intern Med. 1983 Jun;143(6):1221-8 PubMed
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998 May;157(5 Pt 1):1697-8 PubMed
Chest. 2009 May;135(5):1133-1141 PubMed
J Clin Sleep Med. 2016 Dec 15;12(12):1641-1647 PubMed
Sleep. 1985 Dec;8(4):342-6 PubMed
Am Rev Respir Dis. 1982 Aug;126(2):221-4 PubMed
Sleep. 2004 Aug 1;27(5):951-7 PubMed
J Clin Sleep Med. 2018 Mar 15;14(3):359-369 PubMed
Rev Mal Respir. 2010 Oct;27 Suppl 3:S115-23 PubMed
Sleep. 1997 Feb;20(2):168-70 PubMed
Am Rev Respir Dis. 1984 Jul;130(1):59-63 PubMed
Crit Care Med. 1982 Jun;10(6):363-6 PubMed
