STUDY OBJECTIVES: To analyze the night-to-night variability of REM sleep electromyographic (EMG) features of REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) by using the automatic quantitative method known as atonia index (AI), and to evaluate the improvement in sensitivity and specificity of AI for the diagnosis of RBD when a second recording night is available. SETTING: Sleep research center. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. METHODS: A group of 17 idiopathic RBD patients was recruited for whom 2 all-night polysomnographic (PSG) recordings were available. Thirty normal controls were also recruited and subgrouped into Young (< 45 years of age) or Aged (> 45 years). Chin EMG analysis was run on all recordings; night-to-night variability of both AI and number of chin EMG activations/h during REM sleep was additionally quantified as the absolute difference between the 2 nights standardized as the percentage of their mean. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Night-to-night variability of AI was higher in RBD patients (19.7%) than in the 2 groups of controls (Young 1.8% and Aged 2.8%). The values of variability of chin EMG activations were much higher than those of AI, especially in the Aged controls. Sensitivity of AI ≤ 0.9 for RBD was always higher than 82% and reached 88.9% for the combined-night analysis; specificity was also high, with a value of 92.3% for the combined-value analysis. CONCLUSION: The night-to-night variability of AI seems to be very low in normal controls and remains under 20% in RBD patients; that of the number of EMG activations is higher. However, even a single PSG recording provides high values of sensitivity and specificity when a threshold value of AI ≤ 0.9 is used to define abnormal chin EMG levels during REM sleep that increase only moderately when a second night recording is available.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To analyze the night-to-night variability of REM sleep electromyographic (EMG) features of REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) by using the automatic quantitative method known as atonia index (AI), and to evaluate the improvement in sensitivity and specificity of AI for the diagnosis of RBD when a second recording night is available. SETTING: Sleep research center. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. METHODS: A group of 17 idiopathic RBD patients was recruited for whom 2 all-night polysomnographic (PSG) recordings were available. Thirty normal controls were also recruited and subgrouped into Young (< 45 years of age) or Aged (> 45 years). Chin EMG analysis was run on all recordings; night-to-night variability of both AI and number of chin EMG activations/h during REM sleep was additionally quantified as the absolute difference between the 2 nights standardized as the percentage of their mean. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Night-to-night variability of AI was higher in RBD patients (19.7%) than in the 2 groups of controls (Young 1.8% and Aged 2.8%). The values of variability of chin EMG activations were much higher than those of AI, especially in the Aged controls. Sensitivity of AI ≤ 0.9 for RBD was always higher than 82% and reached 88.9% for the combined-night analysis; specificity was also high, with a value of 92.3% for the combined-value analysis. CONCLUSION: The night-to-night variability of AI seems to be very low in normal controls and remains under 20% in RBD patients; that of the number of EMG activations is higher. However, even a single PSG recording provides high values of sensitivity and specificity when a threshold value of AI ≤ 0.9 is used to define abnormal chin EMG levels during REM sleep that increase only moderately when a second night recording is available.
Entities:
Keywords:
RBD; REM sleep behavior disorder; REM sleep without atonia; atonia index; chin EMG analysis; night-to-night variability
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: Raffaele Ferri; Francesco Rundo; Mauro Manconi; Giuseppe Plazzi; Oliviero Bruni; Alessandro Oldani; Luigi Ferini-Strambi; Marco Zucconi Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Jacques Montplaisir; Jean-Francois Gagnon; Maria Livia Fantini; Ronald B Postuma; Yves Dauvilliers; Alex Desautels; Sylvie Rompré; Jean Paquet Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Geert Mayer; Karl Kesper; Thomas Ploch; Sebastian Canisius; Thomas Penzel; Wolfgang Oertel; Karin Stiasny-Kolster Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 2.177
Authors: Marta Kaminska; Victoria P Mery; Anne-Louise Lafontaine; Ann Robinson; Andrea Benedetti; Priti Gros; R John Kimoff Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Stuart J McCarter; Erik K St Louis; David J Sandness; Ethan J Duwell; Paul C Timm; Bradley F Boeve; Michael H Silber Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Stuart J McCarter; Erik K St Louis; Ethan J Duwell; Paul C Timm; David J Sandness; Bradley F Boeve; Michael H Silber Journal: Sleep Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Mitchell G Miglis; Charles H Adler; Elena Antelmi; Dario Arnaldi; Luca Baldelli; Bradley F Boeve; Matteo Cesari; Irene Dall'Antonia; Nico J Diederich; Kathrin Doppler; Petr Dušek; Raffaele Ferri; Jean-François Gagnon; Ziv Gan-Or; Wiebke Hermann; Birgit Högl; Michele T Hu; Alex Iranzo; Annette Janzen; Anastasia Kuzkina; Jee-Young Lee; Klaus L Leenders; Simon J G Lewis; Claudio Liguori; Jun Liu; Christine Lo; Kaylena A Ehgoetz Martens; Jiri Nepozitek; Giuseppe Plazzi; Federica Provini; Monica Puligheddu; Michal Rolinski; Jan Rusz; Ambra Stefani; Rebekah L S Summers; Dallah Yoo; Jennifer Zitser; Wolfgang H Oertel Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2021-08 Impact factor: 44.182