Respiratory polygraphy in children: Feasibility in everyday practice in an ENT department and value of automatic detection of respiratory events

Quality of poly(somno)graphy recordings in children

“…Our results confirm that the NP and OT had the lowest scorability, especially in children aged ≤ 2 years (Blanc et al., 2019). Indeed, nasal or oral sensors are associated with the greatest discomfort and the least presence in children (Goodwin et al., 2001).…”

“…Although the presence and good quality of a signal are crucial for the correct interpretation of a P(S)G, there are no recommendations or validated data on the required technical quality for the different sensors. Different criteria have been used, such as the duration of artefact‐free recording, the presence of at least three channels with artefact‐free recording (Alonso‐Álvarez et al., 2015; Brockmann et al., 2013; Kingshott et al., 2019; Poels et al., 2003), or an overall determined signal quality for a minimal duration of recording (Blanc et al., 2019; Goodwin et al., 2001; Gudnadottir et al., 2019; Marcus et al., 2014). As both the presence and quality of the signal are important, we decided to score these two parameters into five and three different subgroups, respectively.…”

“…Indeed, nasal or oral sensors are associated with the greatest discomfort and the least presence in children (Goodwin et al., 2001). These sensors are most prone to get displaced (Beckerman & Wegmann, 1985; Blanc et al., 2019; Marcus et al., 2014; Tan et al., 2014), and numerous factors may explain a poor signal such as nasal secretions, adenoidal hypertrophy and fluctuations in nasal resistance due to the nasal cycle. Due to a more limited cooperation, these problems are more common in young children.…”

“…Once again, the poor/bad cooperation of the child had a major impact on the facial sensors (NP and OT), but also on the sensors placed on the supra‐sternal notch. The sensors should be placed by specialized sleep technicians/nurses in order to secure the most “sensitive” sensors such as the nasal and finger sensors, which are most subject to displacement, and help guarantee better sleep study quality (Blanc et al., 2019; Poels et al., 2003).…”

“…To our knowledge, only two studies have analysed the scorability of in‐hospital P(S)G (Blanc et al., 2019; Brockmann et al., 2013), but none has compared the scorability of all sensors of different P(S)G devices. In‐hospital attended P(S)G is the gold‐standard, but nighttime sleep technicians/nurses are not available in all sleep centres.…”