STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare home unattended polysomnography (H-PSG) with polysomnography performed in a local hospital and telemonitored by a sleep laboratory (T-PSG) in the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). DESIGN: Randomized crossover trial. PATIENTS: Ninety-nine patients with suspected OSAS who underwentH-PSG and T-PSG on 2 consecutive nights, according to a randomized order. MEASUREMENTS: H-PSG and T-PSG were compared in terms of (1) effectiveness, only recordings providing interpretable signals from at least one EEG, the electro-oculograph, the electromyograph, air flow, thoracic or abdominal movements, and arterial oxygen saturation for 180 min of sleep were considered to be effective; (2) patient preference assessed by a questionnaire; and (3) polysomnographic indexes and final interpretative results in patients for whom both recordings were legible. RESULTS: Recordings were considered to be ineffective in 11.2% of T-PSG (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.9 to 17.4%) and in 23.4% of H-PSG (95% CI, 19.12 to 27.68%). Thermistor problems were the main cause of failure of H-PSG. Forty-one percent of patients preferred H-PSG, and 55% preferred T-PSG. H-PSG and T-PSG did not differ in terms of sleep and respiratory indexes in the 65 patients in whom both recordings were legible. H-PSG and T-PSG were concordant in 58 of 65 patients using a 10-event-per-hour apnea-hypopnea index cutoff value for the diagnosis of OSAS. CONCLUSIONS: T-PSG is clearly superior to H-PSG from a technical point of view and tends to be preferred by patients. The site of recording (home vs hospital) has no influence on polysomnographic indexes.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare home unattended polysomnography (H-PSG) with polysomnography performed in a local hospital and telemonitored by a sleep laboratory (T-PSG) in the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). DESIGN: Randomized crossover trial. PATIENTS: Ninety-nine patients with suspected OSAS who underwent H-PSG and T-PSG on 2 consecutive nights, according to a randomized order. MEASUREMENTS: H-PSG and T-PSG were compared in terms of (1) effectiveness, only recordings providing interpretable signals from at least one EEG, the electro-oculograph, the electromyograph, air flow, thoracic or abdominal movements, and arterial oxygen saturation for 180 min of sleep were considered to be effective; (2) patient preference assessed by a questionnaire; and (3) polysomnographic indexes and final interpretative results in patients for whom both recordings were legible. RESULTS: Recordings were considered to be ineffective in 11.2% of T-PSG (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.9 to 17.4%) and in 23.4% of H-PSG (95% CI, 19.12 to 27.68%). Thermistor problems were the main cause of failure of H-PSG. Forty-one percent of patients preferred H-PSG, and 55% preferred T-PSG. H-PSG and T-PSG did not differ in terms of sleep and respiratory indexes in the 65 patients in whom both recordings were legible. H-PSG and T-PSG were concordant in 58 of 65 patients using a 10-event-per-hour apnea-hypopnea index cutoff value for the diagnosis of OSAS. CONCLUSIONS: T-PSG is clearly superior to H-PSG from a technical point of view and tends to be preferred by patients. The site of recording (home vs hospital) has no influence on polysomnographic indexes.
Authors: Dawn M Bravata; Jared Ferguson; Edward J Miech; Rajiv Agarwal; Vincent McClain; Charles Austin; Frederick Struve; Brian Foresman; Xinli Li; Zhu Wang; Linda S Williams; Mary I Dallas; Cody D Couch; Jason Sico; Carlos Fragoso; Marianne S Matthias; Neale Chumbler; Jennifer Myers; Nicholas Burrus; Archana Dube; Dustin D French; Arlene A Schmid; John Concato; H Klar Yaggi Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Stephen D Pittman; Najib T Ayas; Mary M MacDonald; Atul Malhotra; Robert B Fogel; David P White Journal: Sleep Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Karin Trimmel; Hans Gerhard Eder; Marion Böck; Andrijana Stefanic-Kejik; Gerhard Klösch; Stefan Seidel Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 4.062