STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the ability of the Sonomat to diagnose obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). DESIGN: Prospective and randomized. SETTING: Sleep laboratory and home. PARTICIPANTS: 62 subjects; 54 with a clinical history of OSA and 8 normal control subjects. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Simultaneous PSG and Sonomat recordings were made in 62 subjects; 2 were excluded due to a poor nasal flow recording in PSG. There were positive correlations between the two devices for measures of sleep time, respiratory events, and the AHI (all correlations > 0.89). Bland-Altman analysis of the AHI showed positive agreement between devices, particularly at levels around common diagnostic thresholds. The mean difference in AHI values was 1.4 events per hour, and at a diagnostic threshold of 15 events per hour, sensitivity and specificity were 88% and 91%. More than 93% of PSG defined respiratory events were identified by the Sonomat and the absence of respiratory events was correctly identified in 91% of occasions. Gender, obesity, and body position did not influence the accuracy of the Sonomat. PSG snore sensors differed in how much snoring was detected when compared to the Sonomat. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that the Sonomat was reliable and accurate for the diagnosis of OSA. The provision of audible breath sound/snoring replay permits more accurate quantification of snoring. It requires no patient attachment and can be performed in the home with minimal training.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the ability of the Sonomat to diagnose obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). DESIGN: Prospective and randomized. SETTING: Sleep laboratory and home. PARTICIPANTS: 62 subjects; 54 with a clinical history of OSA and 8 normal control subjects. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Simultaneous PSG and Sonomat recordings were made in 62 subjects; 2 were excluded due to a poor nasal flow recording in PSG. There were positive correlations between the two devices for measures of sleep time, respiratory events, and the AHI (all correlations > 0.89). Bland-Altman analysis of the AHI showed positive agreement between devices, particularly at levels around common diagnostic thresholds. The mean difference in AHI values was 1.4 events per hour, and at a diagnostic threshold of 15 events per hour, sensitivity and specificity were 88% and 91%. More than 93% of PSG defined respiratory events were identified by the Sonomat and the absence of respiratory events was correctly identified in 91% of occasions. Gender, obesity, and body position did not influence the accuracy of the Sonomat. PSG snore sensors differed in how much snoring was detected when compared to the Sonomat. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that the Sonomat was reliable and accurate for the diagnosis of OSA. The provision of audible breath sound/snoring replay permits more accurate quantification of snoring. It requires no patient attachment and can be performed in the home with minimal training.
Authors: Philip De Chazal; Niall Fox; Emer O'Hare; Conor Heneghan; Alberto Zaffaroni; Patricia Boyle; Stephanie Smith; Caroline O'Connell; Walter T McNicholas Journal: J Sleep Res Date: 2010-08-12 Impact factor: 3.981
Authors: Ping-Ru T Ko; Julie A Kientz; Eun Kyoung Choe; Matthew Kay; Carol A Landis; Nathaniel F Watson Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Gerhard Weinreich; Sarah Terjung; Yi Wang; Stefanie Werther; Alberto Zaffaroni; Helmut Teschler Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 2.816