STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) and scoring of microsleep (presence of sleep electroencephalograph between 3 and 15s in an epoch) as a diagnostic test for excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). DESIGN: A retrospective study. SETTING: Sleep center at a tertiary care teaching hospital. SUBJECTS: Patients referred to a sleep center who had an MSLT and one or more of the following symptoms; tiredness, sleepiness, memory loss, accidents/near accidents and gap driving. INTERVENTIONS: Full night polysomnography (PSG) and next day MSLT were performed. Patients were classified as 'microsleep-positive' or 'microsleep-negative' according to presence or absence of microsleep. RESULTS: Patients (n=92) were divided into three groups according to their MSLT results; group A had an MSLT</=5min (n=38), group B had an MSLT=6-10min (n=26), and group C had an MSLT>10min (n=28). The number of patients with symptoms of tiredness and memory loss were statistically higher in group A compared with groups B and C (P=0.036). The number of patients with symptoms of EDS, in groups B and C, was significantly higher in patients with microsleep than without microsleep (P<0.05). By a paired McNemar's test, the better performance of adding microsleep to MSLT (sensitivity 42.9%; specificity 63.6%) to assess EDS was statistically significant (P=0.0096). CONCLUSIONS: Microsleep determination during an MSLT is a more sensitive and specific test for EDS as compared to MSLT alone.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) and scoring of microsleep (presence of sleep electroencephalograph between 3 and 15s in an epoch) as a diagnostic test for excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). DESIGN: A retrospective study. SETTING: Sleep center at a tertiary care teaching hospital. SUBJECTS:Patients referred to a sleep center who had an MSLT and one or more of the following symptoms; tiredness, sleepiness, memory loss, accidents/near accidents and gap driving. INTERVENTIONS: Full night polysomnography (PSG) and next day MSLT were performed. Patients were classified as 'microsleep-positive' or 'microsleep-negative' according to presence or absence of microsleep. RESULTS:Patients (n=92) were divided into three groups according to their MSLT results; group A had an MSLT</=5min (n=38), group B had an MSLT=6-10min (n=26), and group C had an MSLT>10min (n=28). The number of patients with symptoms of tiredness and memory loss were statistically higher in group A compared with groups B and C (P=0.036). The number of patients with symptoms of EDS, in groups B and C, was significantly higher in patients with microsleep than without microsleep (P<0.05). By a paired McNemar's test, the better performance of adding microsleep to MSLT (sensitivity 42.9%; specificity 63.6%) to assess EDS was statistically significant (P=0.0096). CONCLUSIONS: Microsleep determination during an MSLT is a more sensitive and specific test for EDS as compared to MSLT alone.
Authors: Jelena Skorucak; Anneke Hertig-Godeschalk; Peter Achermann; Johannes Mathis; David R Schreier Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 4.677