Premium
Assessment of sleep‐disordered breathing using a non‐contact bio‐motion sensor
Author(s) -
Zaffaroni Alberto,
Kent Brian,
O'Hare Emer,
Heneghan Conor,
Boyle Patricia,
O'Connell Geraldine,
Pallin Michael,
Chazal Philip,
McNicholas Walter T.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of sleep research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.297
H-Index - 117
eISSN - 1365-2869
pISSN - 0962-1105
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2869.2012.01056.x
Subject(s) - polysomnography , medicine , sleep (system call) , breathing , gold standard (test) , sleep study , population , ambulatory , physical therapy , receiver operating characteristic , anesthesia , apnea , environmental health , computer science , operating system
Summary Obstructive sleep apnoea is a highly prevalent but under‐diagnosed disorder. The gold standard for diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnoea is inpatient polysomnography. This is resource intensive and inconvenient for the patient, and the development of ambulatory diagnostic modalities has been identified as a key research priority. S leep M inder ( B ianca M ed, N ova UCD , I reland) is a novel, non‐contact, bedside sensor, which uses radio‐waves to measure respiration and movement. Previous studies have shown it to be effective in measuring sleep and respiration. We sought to assess its utility in the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnoea. S leep M inder and polysomnographic assessment of sleep‐disordered breathing were performed simultaneously on consecutive subjects recruited prospectively from our sleep clinic. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of S leep M inder in identifying obstructive sleep apnoea, and how S leep M inder assessment of the apnoea–hypopnoea index correlated with polysomnography. Seventy‐four subjects were recruited. The apnoea–hypopnoea index as measured by S leep M inder correlated strongly with polysomnographic measurement ( r = 0.90; P ≤ 0.0001). When a diagnostic threshold of moderate–severe (apnoea–hypopnoea index ≥15 events h −1 ) obstructive sleep apnoea was used, S leep M inder displayed a sensitivity of 90%, a specificity of 92% and an accuracy of 91% in the diagnosis of sleep‐disordered breathing. The area under the curve for the receiver operator characteristic was 0.97. S leep M inder correctly classified obstructive sleep apnoea severity in the majority of cases, with only one case different from equivalent polysomnography by more than one diagnostic class. We conclude that in an unselected clinical population undergoing investigation for suspected obstructive sleep apnoea, S leep M inder measurement of sleep‐disordered breathing correlates significantly with polysomnography.