| Literature DB >> 35847776 |
Alberto Braghiroli1,2, David Kuller3,4, Massimo Godio1,2, Fabio Rossato1,2, Carlo Sacco1,2, Elisa Morrone1,2.
Abstract
Background: Obstructive sleep apnea affects a consistent percentage of the population, and only a minority of patients have been diagnosed and treated because of a discrepancy between resources available for diagnosis and the epidemiology of a disorder possibly affecting nearly one billion people in the world. Aim: We conducted a study to compare a standard home respiratory monitoring system (Nox T3) with a novel device (Airgo™) consisting of an elastic band and a small recorder, light, comfortable for the patient, and low-cost complete with automatic analysis of the data that produces a screening report indicating the type and severity of sleep respiratory disorder. Patients andEntities:
Keywords: respiratory pattern detection; respiratory sleep disorders; screening; sleep apnea; wearable devices and sensors
Year: 2022 PMID: 35847776 PMCID: PMC9283899 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.938542
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
FIGURE 1The wearable device consists of an elastic band incorporating a silver-coated electrically conductive yarn (see detail), coupled with a microprocessor embedded in an ABS shell. The figure shows the proper placement position.
FIGURE 2The algorithm of Airgo™ transforms every breath into a vector with a specific length (corresponding to tidal volume), a baseline (corresponding to the punctual functional residual capacity) and a shape here described as proportional to upper airway patency.
FIGURE 3The respiratory instability curves (RIC) discriminate the occurrence, severity, and type of sleep respiratory disorder according to the interception of the target area. See text for details.
FIGURE 4The postural OSA is detected by comparing RICs in different body positions. On the left is the whole night RIC graph, on the right data are split by body position, with the percentage of time spent in every position reported. (A) The patient is classified as mild-to-moderate OSA and events occur irrespective of body position. (B) The patient would be classified as mild OSA considering the graph of the whole night, instead, he has severe sleep apnea in the supine position and almost no events in the lateral position.
Anthropometric data and results of sleep studies in the different groups of patients (mean ± SD).
| Normal | Mild-to-moderate OSA | Severe OSA | Positional OSA | Non-OSA disease | |
| Nr | 19 | 40 | 27 | 16 | 16 |
| Age | 49.8 ± 14.14 | 56.7 ± 10.3 | 59.5 ± 14.4 | 56.2 ± 11.1 | 56.1 ± 10.2 |
| Height (cm) | 171.3 ± 9.7 | 171.8 ± 9.9 | 172.8 ± 6.5 | 173.2 ± 9.9 | 170.4 ± 9.2 |
| Weight (Kg) | 76.9 ± 12.9 | 81.5 ± 14.7 | 89.5 ± 13.7 | 78.4 ± 13.6 | 79.4 ± 13.7 |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 26.2 ± 3.6 | 27.6 ± 4.1 | 30.0 ± 4.6 | 26.1 ± 4.0 | 27.3 ± 4.0 |
| AHI | 2.5 ± 1.4 | 15.2 ± 6.3 | 57.2 ± 15.2 | 14.2 ± 8.9 | 13.1 ± 9.1 |
*P < 0.05.
Comparison of diagnosis obtained with Airgo™ vs. Nox T3 (confusion matrix).
| Nox T3 | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Airgo™ | Normal | Mild-to-moderate OSA | Severe OSA | Positional OSA | Non-OSA disease | |
| Normal | 16 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
| Mild-to-moderate OSA | 3 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Severe OSA | 0 | 3 | 27 | 0 | 0 | |
| Positional OSA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 0 | |
| Non-OSA disease | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | |
Evaluation of Airgo™ performance vs. Nox T3 in classifying OSA occurrence (n = 118).
| Value | 95% CI | |
| Prevalence (%) | 70.3 | 62.1–78.5 |
| Sensitivity (%) | 97.6 | 94.8–1.0 |
| Specificity (%) | 91.4 | 86.3–96.5 |
| Positive predictive value (%) | 96.4 | 93.0–99.8 |
| Negative predictive value (%) | 94.1 | 89.8–98.3 |
| Positive likelihood ratio | 11.4 | 5.7–17.1 |
| Negative likelihood ratio | 0.03 | −0.01–0.06 |
| Accuracy (%) | 95.8 | 92.2–99.4 |
CI, confidence interval.
Evaluation of Airgo™ performance vs. Nox T3 in classifying OSA severity (n = 102).
| Value | 95% CI | |
| Prevalence (%) | 78.4 | 70.4–86.4 |
| Sensitivity (%) | 97.5 | 94.4–1.0 |
| Specificity (%) | 72.7 | 64.1–81.3 |
| Positive predicted value (%) | 92.8 | 87.8–97.8 |
| Negative predicted value (%) | 88.8 | 82.7–94.9 |
| Positive likelihood ratio | 3.6 | −0.0–0.07 |
| Negative likelihood ratio | 0.03 | −0.01–0.01 |
| Accuracy (%) | 92.1 | 86.9–97.3 |
CI, confidence interval.
Comparison of time spent on the standard procedures to record sleep studies and produce a final report.
| Airgo | Nox T3 | |
| Device preparation | 5–10 | 15–20 |
| Patient training to wear the device | 3–12 | 15–30 |
| Pre-scoring procedures | 5–10 | 10 |
| Scoring of events by experts | 0 | 60–120 |
| Report production | 5 | 5 |
| Cleaning | 2 | 5–10 |
| Total | 20–39 | 110–195 |
Data are expressed in minutes.