STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the validity of the Apnea Risk Evaluation System (ARES) Unicorder, a self-applied, limited-channel portable monitoring device for the evaluation of sleep disordered breathing (SDB). DESIGN: Prospective study with blinded analysis. SETTING: Sleep disorder center, academic institution. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) and 22 volunteers. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Subjects used the ARES Unicorder at home for 2 nights using only written instructions. Within 2 weeks, they returned to the laboratory for full nocturnal polysomnography (NPSG) with simultaneous monitoring with the Unicorder. NPSGs were scored manually to obtain an apnea-hypopnea index based on Medicare guidelines (AHI4%) and a respiratory disturbance index (RDI). ARES studies were autoscored and reviewed to obtain indices based on equivalent definitions i.e., AHI4%(ARES) and apnea hypopnea (events with 1% desaturation) index (AHI1%(ARES)). Indices from the NPSG were compared to the in-lab ARES and in-home ARES indices using mean differences and the intraclass correlations (ICC). For the in-lab comparison, there was high concordance between AHI4%(NPSG) and AHI4%(ARES) (ICC = 0. 96, mean difference = 0.5/hour) and RDI(NPSG ) and AHI1%(ARES) (ICC =0.93, mean difference = 3.2/hour). For NPSG versus In-Home ARES comparison, there was good concordance between AHI4%(NPSG) and AHI4%(ARES) (ICC = 0.8, mean difference = 4.1/ hour) and RDI(NPSG) and AHI1%(ARES) (ICC = 0.8 mean difference = 8.6/hour). The diagnostic sensitivity of in-lab ARES for diagnosing SDB using an RDI cut-off of 15 per hour was 95% and specificity was 94%, with a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) =17.04, and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) = 0.06. For in-home ARES data the sensitivity was 85% and specificity 91% (LR+ = 9.34, LR- = 0.17). There was good agreement between the manually scored NPSG SDB indices and the autoscoring ARES algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: ARES Unicorder provides acceptably accurate estimates of SDB indices compared to conventional laboratory NPSG for both the simultaneous and in-home ARES data. The high sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios obtained in the group we studied supports the utility of an ambulatory limited-monitoring approach not only for diagnosing sleep disordered breathing but also to rule out SDB in suitably selected groups.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the validity of the Apnea Risk Evaluation System (ARES) Unicorder, a self-applied, limited-channel portable monitoring device for the evaluation of sleep disordered breathing (SDB). DESIGN: Prospective study with blinded analysis. SETTING:Sleep disorder center, academic institution. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) and 22 volunteers. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Subjects used the ARES Unicorder at home for 2 nights using only written instructions. Within 2 weeks, they returned to the laboratory for full nocturnal polysomnography (NPSG) with simultaneous monitoring with the Unicorder. NPSGs were scored manually to obtain an apnea-hypopnea index based on Medicare guidelines (AHI4%) and a respiratory disturbance index (RDI). ARES studies were autoscored and reviewed to obtain indices based on equivalent definitions i.e., AHI4%(ARES) and apnea hypopnea (events with 1% desaturation) index (AHI1%(ARES)). Indices from the NPSG were compared to the in-lab ARES and in-home ARES indices using mean differences and the intraclass correlations (ICC). For the in-lab comparison, there was high concordance between AHI4%(NPSG) and AHI4%(ARES) (ICC = 0. 96, mean difference = 0.5/hour) and RDI(NPSG ) and AHI1%(ARES) (ICC =0.93, mean difference = 3.2/hour). For NPSG versus In-Home ARES comparison, there was good concordance between AHI4%(NPSG) and AHI4%(ARES) (ICC = 0.8, mean difference = 4.1/ hour) and RDI(NPSG) and AHI1%(ARES) (ICC = 0.8 mean difference = 8.6/hour). The diagnostic sensitivity of in-lab ARES for diagnosing SDB using an RDI cut-off of 15 per hour was 95% and specificity was 94%, with a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) =17.04, and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) = 0.06. For in-home ARES data the sensitivity was 85% and specificity 91% (LR+ = 9.34, LR- = 0.17). There was good agreement between the manually scored NPSG SDB indices and the autoscoring ARES algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: ARES Unicorder provides acceptably accurate estimates of SDB indices compared to conventional laboratory NPSG for both the simultaneous and in-home ARES data. The high sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios obtained in the group we studied supports the utility of an ambulatory limited-monitoring approach not only for diagnosing sleep disordered breathing but also to rule out SDB in suitably selected groups.
Authors: T Hori; Y Sugita; E Koga; S Shirakawa; K Inoue; S Uchida; H Kuwahara; M Kousaka; T Kobayashi; Y Tsuji; M Terashima; K Fukuda; N Fukuda Journal: Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 5.188
Authors: W Ward Flemons; Neil J Douglas; Samuel T Kuna; Daniel O Rodenstein; John Wheatley Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Stuart F Quan; Michael E Griswold; Conrad Iber; F Javier Nieto; David M Rapoport; Susan Redline; Mark Sanders; Terry Young Journal: Sleep Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Nancy A Collop; Sharon L Tracy; Vishesh Kapur; Reena Mehra; David Kuhlmann; Sam A Fleishman; Joseph M Ojile Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2011-10-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Sina A Gharib; Amanda L Hurley; Michael J Rosen; James C Spilsbury; Amy E Schell; Reena Mehra; Sanjay R Patel Journal: Sleep Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Ricardo S Osorio; Indu Ayappa; Janna Mantua; Tyler Gumb; Andrew Varga; Anne M Mooney; Omar E Burschtin; Zachary Taxin; Emmanuel During; Nicole Spector; Milton Biagioni; Elizabeth Pirraglia; Hiuyan Lau; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Shou-En Lu; Lisa Mosconi; Lidia Glodzik; David M Rapoport; Mony J de Leon Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2013-12-27 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Amit Chopra; Molly Jung; Robert C Kaplan; David W Appel; Elizabeth A Dinces; Sumitrajit Dhar; Phyllis C Zee; Franklyn Gonzalez; David J Lee; Alberto R Ramos; Howard J Hoffman; Susan Redline; Karen J Cruickshanks; Neomi A Shah Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2016-05-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Ricardo S Osorio; Emma L Ducca; Margaret E Wohlleber; Emily B Tanzi; Tyler Gumb; Akosua Twumasi; Samuel Tweardy; Clifton Lewis; Esther Fischer; Viachaslau Koushyk; Maria Cuartero-Toledo; Mohammed O Sheikh; Elizabeth Pirraglia; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Shou-En Lu; Lisa Mosconi; Lidia Glodzik; Sonja Schuetz; Andrew W Varga; Indu Ayappa; David M Rapoport; Mony J de Leon Journal: Sleep Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 5.849