M Melani Lyons1, Jan F Kraemer2, Radha Dhingra3, Brendan T Keenan1, Niels Wessel2, Martin Glos4, Thomas Penzel4, Indira Gurubhagavatula1,5,6. 1. Center for Sleep and Circadian Neurobiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Physics, Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 3. Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, India. 4. The Centre of Sleep Medicine, Department of Cardiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 5. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Sleep Disorders Clinic at the Philadelphia CMC VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common in commercial motor vehicle operators (CMVOs); however, polysomnography (PSG), the gold-standard diagnostic test, is expensive and inconvenient for screening. OSA is associated with changes in heart rate and voltage on electrocardiography (EKG). We evaluated the utility of EKG parameters in identifying CMVOs at greater risk for sleepiness-related crashes (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] ≥ 30 events/h). METHODS: In this prospective study of CMVOs, we performed EKGs with concurrent PSG, and calculated the respiratory power index (RPI) on EKG, a surrogate for AHI calculated from PSG. We evaluated the utility of two-stage predictive models using simple clinical measures (age, body mass index [BMI], neck circumference, Epworth Sleepiness Scale score, and the Multi-Variable Apnea Prediction [MVAP] score) in the first stage, followed by RPI in a subset as the second-stage. We assessed area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and negative posttest probability (NPTP) for this two-stage approach and for RPI alone. RESULTS: The best-performing model used the MVAP, which combines BMI, age, and sex with three OSA symptoms, in the first stage, followed by RPI in the second. The model yielded an estimated (95% confidence interval) AUC of 0.883 (0.767-0.924), sensitivity of 0.917 (0.706-0.962), and NPTP of 0.034 (0.015-0.133). Predictive characteristics were similar using a model with only BMI as the first-stage screen. CONCLUSIONS: A two-stage model that combines BMI or the MVAP score in the first stage, with EKG in the second, had robust discriminatory power to identify severe OSA in CMVOs.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common in commercial motor vehicle operators (CMVOs); however, polysomnography (PSG), the gold-standard diagnostic test, is expensive and inconvenient for screening. OSA is associated with changes in heart rate and voltage on electrocardiography (EKG). We evaluated the utility of EKG parameters in identifying CMVOs at greater risk for sleepiness-related crashes (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] ≥ 30 events/h). METHODS: In this prospective study of CMVOs, we performed EKGs with concurrent PSG, and calculated the respiratory power index (RPI) on EKG, a surrogate for AHI calculated from PSG. We evaluated the utility of two-stage predictive models using simple clinical measures (age, body mass index [BMI], neck circumference, Epworth Sleepiness Scale score, and the Multi-Variable Apnea Prediction [MVAP] score) in the first stage, followed by RPI in a subset as the second-stage. We assessed area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and negative posttest probability (NPTP) for this two-stage approach and for RPI alone. RESULTS: The best-performing model used the MVAP, which combines BMI, age, and sex with three OSA symptoms, in the first stage, followed by RPI in the second. The model yielded an estimated (95% confidence interval) AUC of 0.883 (0.767-0.924), sensitivity of 0.917 (0.706-0.962), and NPTP of 0.034 (0.015-0.133). Predictive characteristics were similar using a model with only BMI as the first-stage screen. CONCLUSIONS: A two-stage model that combines BMI or the MVAP score in the first stage, with EKG in the second, had robust discriminatory power to identify severe OSA in CMVOs.
Authors: F Roche; J M Gaspoz; I Court-Fortune; P Minini; V Pichot; D Duverney; F Costes; J R Lacour; J C Barthélémy Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-09-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Stephen V Burks; Jon E Anderson; Matthew Bombyk; Rebecca Haider; Derek Ganzhorn; Xueyang Jiao; Connor Lewis; Andrew Lexvold; Hong Liu; Jiachen Ning; Alice Toll; Jeffrey S Hickman; Erin Mabry; Mark Berger; Atul Malhotra; Charles A Czeisler; Stefanos N Kales Journal: Sleep Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Mark E Howard; Anup V Desai; Ronald R Grunstein; Craig Hukins; John G Armstrong; David Joffe; Philip Swann; Donald A Campbell; Robert J Pierce Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2004-08-18 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Steven J Holfinger; M Melanie Lyons; Brendan T Keenan; Diego R Mazzotti; Jesse Mindel; Greg Maislin; Peter A Cistulli; Kate Sutherland; Nigel McArdle; Bhajan Singh; Ning-Hung Chen; Thorarinn Gislason; Thomas Penzel; Fang Han; Qing Yun Li; Richard Schwab; Allan I Pack; Ulysses J Magalang Journal: Chest Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Julian Leube; Johannes Zschocke; Maria Kluge; Luise Pelikan; Antonia Graf; Martin Glos; Alexander Müller; Ronny P Bartsch; Thomas Penzel; Jan W Kantelhardt Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Irena Andršová; Katerina Hnatkova; Martina Šišáková; Ondřej Toman; Peter Smetana; Katharina M Huster; Petra Barthel; Tomáš Novotný; Georg Schmidt; Marek Malik Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2020-12-16