Lusine Abrahamyan1,2, Yeva Sahakyan3, Suzanne Chung3, Petros Pechlivanoglou4,5, Joanna Bielecki3, Steven M Carcone3, Valeria E Rac3,4, Michael Fitzpatrick6, Murray Krahn3,4,7. 1. Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, 10th Floor Eaton North, Room 237, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada. lusine.abrahamyan@theta.utoronto.ca. 2. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (IHPME), University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. lusine.abrahamyan@theta.utoronto.ca. 3. Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, 10th Floor Eaton North, Room 237, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada. 4. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (IHPME), University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada. 7. General Internal Medicine, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is the most common sleep-related breathing disorder. In-laboratory, overnight type I polysomnography (PSG) is the current "gold standard" for diagnosing OSA. Home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) using portable monitors (PMs) is an alternative testing method offering better comfort and lower costs. We aimed to systematically review the evidence on diagnostic ability of type IV PMs compared to PSG in diagnosing OSA. METHODS: Participants: patients ≥16 years old with symptoms suggestive of OSA;intervention: type IV PMs (devices with < 2 respiratory channels); comparator: in-laboratory PSG; outcomes: diagnostic accuracy measures;studies: cross-sectional, prospective observational/experimental/quasi-experimental studies; information sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane Library from January 1, 2010 to May 10, 2016. All stages of review were conducted independently by two investigators. RESULTS: We screened 6054 abstracts and 117 full-text articles to select 24 full-text articles for final review. These 24 studies enrolled a total of 2068 patients with suspected OSA and evaluated 10 different PMs with one to six channels. Only seven (29%) studies tested PMs in the home setting. The mean difference (bias) between PSG-measured and PM-measured apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) ranged from - 14.8 to 10.6 events/h. At AHI ≥ 5 events/h, the sensitivity of type IV PMs ranged from 67.5-100% and specificity ranged from 25 to 100%. CONCLUSION: While current evidence is not very strong for the stand-alone use of level IV PMs in clinical practice, they can potentially widen access to diagnosis and treatment of OSA. Policy recommendations regarding HSAT use should also consider the health and broader social implications of false positive and false negative diagnoses.
PURPOSE:Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is the most common sleep-related breathing disorder. In-laboratory, overnight type I polysomnography (PSG) is the current "gold standard" for diagnosing OSA. Home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) using portable monitors (PMs) is an alternative testing method offering better comfort and lower costs. We aimed to systematically review the evidence on diagnostic ability of type IV PMs compared to PSG in diagnosing OSA. METHODS:Participants: patients ≥16 years old with symptoms suggestive of OSA;intervention: type IV PMs (devices with < 2 respiratory channels); comparator: in-laboratory PSG; outcomes: diagnostic accuracy measures;studies: cross-sectional, prospective observational/experimental/quasi-experimental studies; information sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane Library from January 1, 2010 to May 10, 2016. All stages of review were conducted independently by two investigators. RESULTS: We screened 6054 abstracts and 117 full-text articles to select 24 full-text articles for final review. These 24 studies enrolled a total of 2068 patients with suspected OSA and evaluated 10 different PMs with one to six channels. Only seven (29%) studies tested PMs in the home setting. The mean difference (bias) between PSG-measured and PM-measured apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) ranged from - 14.8 to 10.6 events/h. At AHI ≥ 5 events/h, the sensitivity of type IV PMs ranged from 67.5-100% and specificity ranged from 25 to 100%. CONCLUSION: While current evidence is not very strong for the stand-alone use of level IV PMs in clinical practice, they can potentially widen access to diagnosis and treatment of OSA. Policy recommendations regarding HSAT use should also consider the health and broader social implications of false positive and false negative diagnoses.
Authors: Lydia Makarie Rofail; Keith K H Wong; Gunnar Unger; Guy B Marks; Ronald R Grunstein Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2010-08-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Laurent Poupard; Carole Philippe; Michael David Goldman; Richard Sartène; Marc Mathieu Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2011-04-15 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Clete A Kushida; Michael R Littner; Timothy Morgenthaler; Cathy A Alessi; Dennis Bailey; Jack Coleman; Leah Friedman; Max Hirshkowitz; Sheldon Kapen; Milton Kramer; Teofilo Lee-Chiong; Daniel L Loube; Judith Owens; Jeffrey P Pancer; Merrill Wise Journal: Sleep Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Vishesh K Kapur; Dennis H Auckley; Susmita Chowdhuri; David C Kuhlmann; Reena Mehra; Kannan Ramar; Christopher G Harrod Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Nancy A Collop; W McDowell Anderson; Brian Boehlecke; David Claman; Rochelle Goldberg; Daniel J Gottlieb; David Hudgel; Michael Sateia; Richard Schwab Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2007-12-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Kaiyin Zhu; Michael Li; Sina Akbarian; Maziar Hafezi; Azadeh Yadollahi; Babak Taati Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: Andrea N Natsky; Andrew Vakulin; Ching Li Chai-Coetzer; R Doug McEvoy; Robert J Adams; Billingsley Kaambwa Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 3.686
Authors: Robert L Folmer; Eilis A Boudreau; Charles W Atwood; Connor J Smith; Annette M Totten; Jamie L Tock; Priyanka Chilakamarri; Kathleen F Sarmiento Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2022-04-02 Impact factor: 3.320