Ricardo L M Duarte1,2, Flavio J Magalhães-da-Silveira3, David Gozal4. 1. SleepLab - Laboratório de Estudo dos Distúrbios do Sono, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. rlmduarte@gmail.com. 2. Instituto de Doenças do Tórax - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. rlmduarte@gmail.com. 3. SleepLab - Laboratório de Estudo dos Distúrbios do Sono, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 4. Department of Child Health and the Child Health Research Institute, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate the GOAL questionnaire as obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) screening tool in bariatric surgery (BS) patients and compare it with other existing instruments. METHODS: Before performing full polysomnography (PSG), all participants were screened for OSA with the following instruments: GOAL, STOP, STOP-Bang, No-Apnea, NoSAS, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). Discrimination was assessed by area under the curve (AUC), while predictive parameters were calculated by contingency tables. Correlation was evaluated by the Spearman correlation coefficient (r). OSA severity was classified based on the apnea/hypopnea index (AHI): ≥ 5.0/h (OSA≥ 5), ≥ 15.0/h (OSA≥ 15), and ≥ 30.0/h (OSA≥ 30). RESULTS: Overall, 814 BS individuals (70.8% of females) were enrolled. We found a high prevalence of OSA≥ 5 (82.6%), OSA≥ 15 (60.0%), and OSA≥ 30 (38.8%). GOAL questionnaire was positively correlated with the AHI (r = 0.570, p < 0.001). Using a score ≥ 2 to classify patients at high risk of OSA, GOAL questionnaire had sensitivities ranging from 73.7 to 89.2% and specificities ranging from 78.2 to 51.0% for predicting OSA≥ 5, OSA≥ 15, and OSA≥ 30. At all OSA severity levels, GOAL exhibited similar and non-inferior discrimination when compared with STOP-Bang, No-Apnea, and NoSAS (all p values > 0.05), and performed significantly better than STOP and ESS (all p values < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of BS patients, GOAL, No-Apnea, STOP-Bang, and NoSAS, but not ESS and STOP, enable satisfactory discrimination as OSA screening instruments at all disease severity levels.
OBJECTIVE: To validate the GOAL questionnaire as obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) screening tool in bariatric surgery (BS) patients and compare it with other existing instruments. METHODS: Before performing full polysomnography (PSG), all participants were screened for OSA with the following instruments: GOAL, STOP, STOP-Bang, No-Apnea, NoSAS, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). Discrimination was assessed by area under the curve (AUC), while predictive parameters were calculated by contingency tables. Correlation was evaluated by the Spearman correlation coefficient (r). OSA severity was classified based on the apnea/hypopnea index (AHI): ≥ 5.0/h (OSA≥ 5), ≥ 15.0/h (OSA≥ 15), and ≥ 30.0/h (OSA≥ 30). RESULTS: Overall, 814 BS individuals (70.8% of females) were enrolled. We found a high prevalence of OSA≥ 5 (82.6%), OSA≥ 15 (60.0%), and OSA≥ 30 (38.8%). GOAL questionnaire was positively correlated with the AHI (r = 0.570, p < 0.001). Using a score ≥ 2 to classify patients at high risk of OSA, GOAL questionnaire had sensitivities ranging from 73.7 to 89.2% and specificities ranging from 78.2 to 51.0% for predicting OSA≥ 5, OSA≥ 15, and OSA≥ 30. At all OSA severity levels, GOAL exhibited similar and non-inferior discrimination when compared with STOP-Bang, No-Apnea, and NoSAS (all p values > 0.05), and performed significantly better than STOP and ESS (all p values < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of BS patients, GOAL, No-Apnea, STOP-Bang, and NoSAS, but not ESS and STOP, enable satisfactory discrimination as OSA screening instruments at all disease severity levels.
Authors: R Heinzer; S Vat; P Marques-Vidal; H Marti-Soler; D Andries; N Tobback; V Mooser; M Preisig; A Malhotra; G Waeber; P Vollenweider; M Tafti; J Haba-Rubio Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Adam V Benjafield; Najib T Ayas; Peter R Eastwood; Raphael Heinzer; Mary S M Ip; Mary J Morrell; Carlos M Nunez; Sanjay R Patel; Thomas Penzel; Jean-Louis Pépin; Paul E Peppard; Sanjeev Sinha; Sergio Tufik; Kate Valentine; Atul Malhotra Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Stephen V Burks; Jon E Anderson; Bibhudutta Panda; Rebecca Haider; Tim Ginader; Nicole Sandback; Darya Pokutnaya; Derek Toso; Natalie Hughes; Humza S Haider; Resa Brockman; Alice Toll; Nicholas Solberg; Jesse Eklund; Michael Cagle; Jeffery S Hickman; Erin Mabry; Mark Berger; Charles A Czeisler; Stefanos N Kales Journal: Sleep Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Sergio Tufik; Rogerio Santos-Silva; Jose Augusto Taddei; Lia Rita Azeredo Bittencourt Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2010-04-01 Impact factor: 3.492
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: Paul E Peppard; Terry Young; Jodi H Barnet; Mari Palta; Erika W Hagen; Khin Mae Hla Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-04-14 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Emerson M Wickwire; Sarah E Tom; Aparna Vadlamani; Montserrat Diaz-Abad; Liesl M Cooper; Abree M Johnson; Steven M Scharf; Jennifer S Albrecht Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Tien N Vo; Allyson M Kats; Lisa Langsetmo; Brent C Taylor; John T Schousboe; Susan Redline; Ken M Kunisaki; Katie L Stone; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: Sleep Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 5.849