OBJECTIVES: In critically ill patients, sleep derangements are reported to be severe using Rechtschaffen and Kales (R&K) methodology; however, whether such methodology can reliably assess sleep during critical illness is unknown. We set out to determine the reproducibility of 4 different sleep-assessment methods (3 manual and 1 computer-based) for ventilator-supported critically ill patients and also to quantify the extent to which the reproducibility of the manual methods for measuring sleep differed between critically ill and ambulatory (control) patients. DESIGN: Observational methodologic study. SETTING: Academic center. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation and age-matched controls underwent polysomnography. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Reproducibility for the computer-based method (spectral analysis of electroencephalography [EEG]) was better than that for the manual methods: R&K methodology and sleep-wakefulness organization pattern (P = 0.03). In critically ill patients, the proportion of misclassifications for measurements using spectral analysis, sleep-wakefulness organization pattern, and R&K methodology were 0%, 36%, and 53%, respectively (P < 0.0001). The EEG pattern of burst suppression was not observed. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the manual sleep-assessment methods for critically ill patients (kappa = 0.52 +/- 0.23) was worse than that for control patients (kappa = 0.89 +/- 0.13; P = 0.03). In critically ill patients, the overall reliability of the R&K methodology was relatively low for assessing sleep (kappa = 0.19), but detection of rapid eye movement sleep revealed good agreement (kappa = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility for spectral analysis of EEG was better than that for the manual methods: R&K methodology and sleep-wakefulness organization pattern. For assessment of sleep in critically ill patients, the use of spectral analysis, sleep-wakefulness organization state, or rapid eye movement sleep alone may be preferred over the R&K methodology.
OBJECTIVES: In critically illpatients, sleep derangements are reported to be severe using Rechtschaffen and Kales (R&K) methodology; however, whether such methodology can reliably assess sleep during critical illness is unknown. We set out to determine the reproducibility of 4 different sleep-assessment methods (3 manual and 1 computer-based) for ventilator-supported critically illpatients and also to quantify the extent to which the reproducibility of the manual methods for measuring sleep differed between critically ill and ambulatory (control) patients. DESIGN: Observational methodologic study. SETTING: Academic center. PATIENTS: Critically illpatients receiving mechanical ventilation and age-matched controls underwent polysomnography. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Reproducibility for the computer-based method (spectral analysis of electroencephalography [EEG]) was better than that for the manual methods: R&K methodology and sleep-wakefulness organization pattern (P = 0.03). In critically illpatients, the proportion of misclassifications for measurements using spectral analysis, sleep-wakefulness organization pattern, and R&K methodology were 0%, 36%, and 53%, respectively (P < 0.0001). The EEG pattern of burst suppression was not observed. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the manual sleep-assessment methods for critically illpatients (kappa = 0.52 +/- 0.23) was worse than that for control patients (kappa = 0.89 +/- 0.13; P = 0.03). In critically illpatients, the overall reliability of the R&K methodology was relatively low for assessing sleep (kappa = 0.19), but detection of rapid eye movement sleep revealed good agreement (kappa = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility for spectral analysis of EEG was better than that for the manual methods: R&K methodology and sleep-wakefulness organization pattern. For assessment of sleep in critically illpatients, the use of spectral analysis, sleep-wakefulness organization state, or rapid eye movement sleep alone may be preferred over the R&K methodology.
Authors: H Witte; C Schelenz; M Specht; H Jäger; P Putsche; M Arnold; L Leistritz; K Reinhart Journal: Neurosci Lett Date: 1999-01-22 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Daniel J Gottlieb; Susan Redline; F Javier Nieto; Carol M Baldwin; Anne B Newman; Helaine E Resnick; Naresh M Punjabi Journal: Sleep Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Michael Arzt; Terry Young; Laurel Finn; James B Skatrud; T Douglas Bradley Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Dagmar A Schmid; Adam Wichniak; Manfred Uhr; Marcus Ising; Hans Brunner; Katja Held; Jutta C Weikel; Annette Sonntag; Axel Steiger Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Francesco Fanfulla; Monica Delmastro; Angela Berardinelli; Nadia D'Artavilla Lupo; Stefano Nava Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2005-06-16 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Melissa P Knauert; H Klar Yaggi; Nancy S Redeker; Terrence E Murphy; Katy L Araujo; Margaret A Pisani Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2014-07-12 Impact factor: 2.210
Authors: Chithra Poongkunran; Santosh G John; Arun S Kannan; Safal Shetty; Christian Bime; Sairam Parthasarathy Journal: Am J Med Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Paula L Watson; Pratik Pandharipande; Brian K Gehlbach; Jennifer L Thompson; Ayumi K Shintani; Bob S Dittus; Gordon R Bernard; Beth A Malow; E Wesley Ely Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Gerald L Weinhouse; Richard J Schwab; Paula L Watson; Namrata Patil; Bernardino Vaccaro; Pratik Pandharipande; E Wesley Ely Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-12-07 Impact factor: 9.097