OBJECTIVES: To determine if recording of suprasternal pressure (SSP) can classify apneas and hypopneas as reliably as respiratory inductance plethysmography (RIP) belts and to compare the two methods to classification with esophageal pressure (Pes), the reference method for assessing respiratory effort. METHODS: In addition to polysomnographic recordings that included Pes, SSP was recorded. Recordings from 32 patients (25 males, mean age 66.7 ± 15.3 years, and mean BMI 30.1 ± 4.5 kg/m2) were used to compare the classification of detected apneas and hypopneas by three methods of respiratory effort evaluation (Pes, RIP belts, and SSP). Signals were analyzed randomly and independently from each other. All recordings were analyzed according to AASM guidelines. RESULTS: Using Pes as a reference for apnea characterization, the Cohen kappa (κ) was 0.93 for SSP and 0.87 for the RIP. The sensitivity/specificity of SSP was 97.0%/96.9% for obstructive, 93.9%/98.3% for central, and 94.9%/97.9% for mixed apneas. The sensitivity/specificity of the RIP was 97.4%/91.9% for obstructive, 87.5%/97.9% for central, and 85.6%/96.6% for mixed apneas. For hypopnea characterization using the Pes as a reference, κ was 0.92 for SSP and 0.86 for the RIP. The sensitivity/specificity of SSP was 99.7%/97.6% for obstructive and 97.6%/99.7% for central. The sensitivity/specificity of the RIP was 99.8%/81.1% for obstructive and 81.1%/99.8% for central. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the excellent agreement in the detection of respiratory effort between SSP, RIP belts, and Pes signals. Thus, we conclude that apnea and hypopnea characterization in adults with SSP is a reliable method.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if recording of suprasternal pressure (SSP) can classify apneas and hypopneas as reliably as respiratory inductance plethysmography (RIP) belts and to compare the two methods to classification with esophageal pressure (Pes), the reference method for assessing respiratory effort. METHODS: In addition to polysomnographic recordings that included Pes, SSP was recorded. Recordings from 32 patients (25 males, mean age 66.7 ± 15.3 years, and mean BMI 30.1 ± 4.5 kg/m2) were used to compare the classification of detected apneas and hypopneas by three methods of respiratory effort evaluation (Pes, RIP belts, and SSP). Signals were analyzed randomly and independently from each other. All recordings were analyzed according to AASM guidelines. RESULTS: Using Pes as a reference for apnea characterization, the Cohen kappa (κ) was 0.93 for SSP and 0.87 for the RIP. The sensitivity/specificity of SSP was 97.0%/96.9% for obstructive, 93.9%/98.3% for central, and 94.9%/97.9% for mixed apneas. The sensitivity/specificity of the RIP was 97.4%/91.9% for obstructive, 87.5%/97.9% for central, and 85.6%/96.6% for mixed apneas. For hypopnea characterization using the Pes as a reference, κ was 0.92 for SSP and 0.86 for the RIP. The sensitivity/specificity of SSP was 99.7%/97.6% for obstructive and 97.6%/99.7% for central. The sensitivity/specificity of the RIP was 99.8%/81.1% for obstructive and 81.1%/99.8% for central. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the excellent agreement in the detection of respiratory effort between SSP, RIP belts, and Pes signals. Thus, we conclude that apnea and hypopnea characterization in adults with SSP is a reliable method.
Authors: Clete A Kushida; Angela Giacomini; Matthias K Lee; Christian Guilleminault; William C Dement Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Richard B Berry; Rohit Budhiraja; Daniel J Gottlieb; David Gozal; Conrad Iber; Vishesh K Kapur; Carole L Marcus; Reena Mehra; Sairam Parthasarathy; Stuart F Quan; Susan Redline; Kingman P Strohl; Sally L Davidson Ward; Michelle M Tangredi Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 4.062