STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compared the validity of a new portable polysomnographic recorder against a laboratory-based polysomnographic system from the same manufacturer. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: Simultaneous, full polysomnographic recordings from the portable device (PSGP) and the laboratory-based system (PSGL) were obtained using separate sets of sensors on 20 patients referred for investigation of sleep apnea. SETTING: After initial optimization of signals, the portable device was left unattended in 10 of the patients (to simulate home studies), while in the other 10 the signals were reviewed on a laptop computer screen and adjustments to electrode or sensor placement made as needed during the studies. Recordings were manually scored by a technologist blinded to the origin of the data. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The quality of signals was comparable between the PSGP and PSGL studies, apart from a slight decrease in respiratory signal quality during PSGP studies that led to reduced confidence in respiratory event scoring. SaO2 signal loss was also greater in unattended PSGP. There was good agreement between PSGP and PSGL for sleep variables and the apnea-hypopnea index (r=0.99). The periodic limb movement index was slightly lower during unattended PSGP. Blinded physician assessment of the records led to a recommendation for repeat studies due to poor signal quality in one (10%) attended and one (10%) unattended portable recording. There was no significant discordance between PSGP and PSGL in the final diagnostic formulations. CONCLUSION: Portable polysomnography is a viable alternative to laboratory-based polysomnography and may be improved further by better sensor attachment.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compared the validity of a new portable polysomnographic recorder against a laboratory-based polysomnographic system from the same manufacturer. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: Simultaneous, full polysomnographic recordings from the portable device (PSGP) and the laboratory-based system (PSGL) were obtained using separate sets of sensors on 20 patients referred for investigation of sleep apnea. SETTING: After initial optimization of signals, the portable device was left unattended in 10 of the patients (to simulate home studies), while in the other 10 the signals were reviewed on a laptop computer screen and adjustments to electrode or sensor placement made as needed during the studies. Recordings were manually scored by a technologist blinded to the origin of the data. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The quality of signals was comparable between the PSGP and PSGL studies, apart from a slight decrease in respiratory signal quality during PSGP studies that led to reduced confidence in respiratory event scoring. SaO2 signal loss was also greater in unattended PSGP. There was good agreement between PSGP and PSGL for sleep variables and the apnea-hypopnea index (r=0.99). The periodic limb movement index was slightly lower during unattended PSGP. Blinded physician assessment of the records led to a recommendation for repeat studies due to poor signal quality in one (10%) attended and one (10%) unattended portable recording. There was no significant discordance between PSGP and PSGL in the final diagnostic formulations. CONCLUSION: Portable polysomnography is a viable alternative to laboratory-based polysomnography and may be improved further by better sensor attachment.
Authors: Ahmed I Masoud; Pallavi P Patwari; Pranshu A Adavadkar; Henry Arantes; Chang Park; David W Carley Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Stephen D Pittman; Najib T Ayas; Mary M MacDonald; Atul Malhotra; Robert B Fogel; David P White Journal: Sleep Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Marcello Di Pumpo; Mario Cesare Nurchis; Antonio Moffa; Lucrezia Giorgi; Lorenzo Sabatino; Peter Baptista; Lorenzo Sommella; Manuele Casale; Gianfranco Damiani Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 2.655