Evaluation of a portable recording device (ApneaLink™) for case selection of obstructive sleep apnea

Chen, Hui; Lowe, Alan A.; Bai, Yuxing; Hamilton, Peter; Fleetham, John A.; Almeida, Fernanda R.

doi:10.1007/s11325-008-0232-4

Cited by 120 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some previous studies 18,19,27,28 have validated this PM in the laboratory (i.e., concurrent with PSG) and reported good sensitivity (80% to 100%) to rule in OSA (AHI ≥ 5 events/h) but variable specificity (50% to 100%), with LR+ values ranging from 1.9 to infinity. Our study showed high diagnostic accuracy to rule in OSA with specificity 100% and LR+ infinity on the simultaneous night assessment.…”

Section: -11mentioning

confidence: 85%

“…The subject took the equipment home, wore it during a "usual" night's sleep and returned it by post. During simultaneous PM and PSG (P2), the nasal pressure signal was delivered to both sleep systems using a Y-piece in the nasal catheter, a methodology validated in previous studies, [16][17][18][19] and the subject wore separate oximetry finger probes for the PM device and PSG. At the conclusion of the PSG all subjects were given a PM device and instructed about its correct use.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have one or more of the following limitations: (a) failure to study the PM device in its site of intended use, the home 18,19,27,28 ; (b) low sample size [16][17][18][19][20][21]27,28 ; (c) failure to collect oximetry data [16][17][18][19][20]27,29 ; (d) no randomization of order of comparison 18,19,27,28 ; and (d) no manual review of the raw PM data. [16][17][18][19][20]27,29,30 Our validation addresses these limitations.…”

Section: -11mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[16][17][18][19][20]27,29,30 Our validation addresses these limitations. It examines the PM device in both the home and laboratory settings, is adequately powered, includes both flow and oximetry data, avoids order bias, and assesses the impact of manual scoring of PM data on performance.…”

Section: -11mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Comprehensive Evaluation of a Two-Channel Portable Monitor to “Rule in” Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Ward

McArdle

Bremner

et al. 2015

Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Objectives:We hypothesized that a dual-channel portable monitor (PM) device could accurately identify patients who have a high pretest probability of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and we evaluated factors that may contribute to variability between PM and polysomnography (PSG) results. Methods: Consecutive clinic patients (N = 104) with possible OSA completed a home PM study, a PM study simultaneous with laboratory PSG, and a second home PM study. Uniform data analysis methods were applied to both PM and PSG data. Primary outcomes of interest were the positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and sensitivity of the PM device to "rule-in" OSA, defi ned as an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) ≥ 5 events/h on PSG. Effects of different test environment and study nights, and order of study and analysis methods (manual compared to automated) on PM diagnostic accuracy were assessed. Results: The PM has adequate LR+ (4.8), sensitivity (80%), and specifi city (83%) for detecting OSA in the unattended home setting when benchmarked against laboratory PSG, with better LR+ (> 5) and specifi city (100%) and unchanged sensitivity (80%) in the simultaneous laboratory comparison. There were no signifi cant night-night (all p > 0.10) or study order effects (home or laboratory fi rst, p = 0.08) on AHI measures. Manual PM data review improved case fi nding accuracy, although this was not statistically signifi cant (all p > 0.07). Misclassifi cation was more frequent where OSA was mild. Conclusions: Overall performance of the PM device is consistent with current recommended criteria for an "acceptable" device to confi dently "rule-in" OSA (AHI ≥ 5 events/h) in a high pretest probability clinic population. Our data support the utility of simple two-channel diagnostic devices to confi rm the diagnosis of OSA in the home environment.

show abstract

Section: -11mentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: -11mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: -11mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Comprehensive Evaluation of a Two-Channel Portable Monitor to “Rule in” Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Ward

McArdle

Bremner

et al. 2015

Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This sample selection is not representative of the typical age profile of OSA sufferers. Most previous studies that validated AL in OSA patients included younger middle-aged patients [5,6,10,11]. In addition, the study recruited Caucasians and Asians.…”

Section: A Paper By Mcevoy Et Al Recently Appeared In the Newmentioning

confidence: 99%

The SAVE Trial: Has the Importance of CPAP for Preventing Cardiovascular Events been Discounted?

BaHammam

Pandi-Perumal²,

Spence³

et al. 2017

Sleep Vigilance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Screening for obstructive sleep apnoea in post‐treatment cancer patients

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims: For cancer patients, comorbid obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) poses additional risk to their surgical/anaesthetic outcomes, quality of life, and survival. However, OSA screening is not well-established in oncology settings. We tested two screening tools (STOP-Bang questionnaire [SBQ] and the at-home monitoring device, ApneaLink™Air), for predicting polysomnography (PSG) confirmed OSA in post-treatment cancer patients.Methods: Breast (n = 56), endometrial (n = 37) and melanoma patients (n = 50) were recruited from follow-up clinics at Westmead Hospital (Sydney, Australia). All underwent overnight PSG, 137 completed SBQ, and 99 completed ApneaLink™Air. Positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values for PSG-determined moderate-to-severe OSA and severe OSA, were calculated using an SBQ threshold ≥3 au and ApneaLin-k™Air apnoea-hypopnea index thresholds of ≥10, ≥15 and ≥30 events/h.Results: Both SBQ and ApneaLink™Air had high NPVs (92.7% and 85.2%-95.6% respectively) for severe OSA, but NPVs were lower for moderate-to-severe OSA (69.1% and 59.1%-75.5%, respectively). PPV for both tools were relatively low (all <73%). Combining both tools did not improve screening performance.Conclusions: These screening tools may help identify cancer patients without severe OSA, but both are limited in identifying those with moderate-to-severe or severe OSA. PSG remains optimal for adequately identifying and managing comorbid OSA in cancer patients.

show abstract

Evaluation of a portable recording device (ApneaLink™) for case selection of obstructive sleep apnea

Cited by 120 publications

References 22 publications

A Comprehensive Evaluation of a Two-Channel Portable Monitor to “Rule in” Obstructive Sleep Apnea

A Comprehensive Evaluation of a Two-Channel Portable Monitor to “Rule in” Obstructive Sleep Apnea

The SAVE Trial: Has the Importance of CPAP for Preventing Cardiovascular Events been Discounted?

Screening for obstructive sleep apnoea in post‐treatment cancer patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About