2010PubMedRequires access

[Comparative analysis of polysomnography and micro-sensitive mattress-sleep monitor used for obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome].

Qingfeng Zhang, Yifeng Tong, Cuiping She, Xinran Zhang, Wei Song, Limei Wang, Chenjing Cheng

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficiency of mattress-type micro sensitive monitor (MMSM) in sleep monitoring. METHODS: Forty patients diagnosed as obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) by polysomnography (PSG) were randomly chosen, then received MMSM examination within 2 - 5 days. The results of both methods were compared, using the respiratory disturbance index, sleep efficiency, and obstructive factors as indicators. RESULTS: All 40 patients were diagnosed as OSAHS, which were consistent with the results of PSG. There was no statistical difference when comparing the apnea hypopnea index (AHI, x(-) ± s, 35.6 ± 21.3 and 37.6 ± 18.8, respectively) and the ratio of rapid eyes movement (REM) stage (15.0 ± 4.5)% and (15.8 ± 6.3)%, respectively (t were 1.867 and 1.014, P > 0.01). Some statistical sense was found when patients'deep sleep, shallow sleep and sleep efficiency were compared (P < 0.01). According to the severity diagnosed by PSG, patients with mild, moderate and severe OSAHS were 11, 7 and 22 cases, respectively, Comparing by MMSM, 2, 19 and 19 cases, respectively. Among seventeen volunteers diagnosed by PSG as normal subjects, 2 of them were diagnosed as mild OSAHS. The sensitivity of MMSM was 100.0% and the specificity was 88.2%. CONCLUSIONS: With regard to the diagnosis of OSAHS, MMSM is well consistent with PSG. The MMSM can be applied clinically as a monitor technique.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficiency of mattress-type micro sensitive monitor (MMSM) in sleep monitoring. METHODS: Forty patients diagnosed as obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) by polysomnography (PSG) were randomly chosen, then received MMSM examination within 2 - 5 days. The results of both methods were compared, using the respiratory disturbance index, sleep efficiency, and obstructive factors as indicators. RESULTS: All 40 patients were diagnosed as OSAHS, which were consistent with the results of PSG. There was no statistical difference when comparing the apnea hypopnea index (AHI, x(-) ± s, 35.6 ± 21.3 and 37.6 ± 18.8, respectively) and the ratio of rapid eyes movement (REM) stage (15.0 ± 4.5)% and (15.8 ± 6.3)%, respectively (t were 1.867 and 1.014, P > 0.01). Some statistical sense was found when patients'deep sleep, shallow sleep and sleep efficiency were compared (P < 0.01). According to the severity diagnosed by PSG, patients with mild, moderate and severe OSAHS were 11, 7 and 22 cases, respectively, Comparing by MMSM, 2, 19 and 19 cases, respectively. Among seventeen volunteers diagnosed by PSG as normal subjects, 2 of them were diagnosed as mild OSAHS. The sensitivity of MMSM was 100.0% and the specificity was 88.2%. CONCLUSIONS: With regard to the diagnosis of OSAHS, MMSM is well consistent with PSG. The MMSM can be applied clinically as a monitor technique.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficiency of mattress-type micro sensitive monitor (MMSM) in sleep monitoring. METHODS: Forty patients diagnosed as obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) by polysomnography (PSG) were randomly chosen, then received MMSM examination within 2 - 5 days. The results of both methods were compared, using the respiratory disturbance index, sleep efficiency, and obstructive factors as indicators. RESULTS: All 40 patients were diagnosed as OSAHS, which were consistent with the results of PSG. There was no statistical difference when comparing the apnea hypopnea index (AHI, x(-) ± s, 35.6 ± 21.3 and 37.6 ± 18.8, respectively) and the ratio of rapid eyes movement (REM) stage (15.0 ± 4.5)% and (15.8 ± 6.3)%, respectively (t were 1.867 and 1.014, P > 0.01). Some statistical sense was found when patients'deep sleep, shallow sleep and sleep efficiency were compared (P < 0.01). According to the severity diagnosed by PSG, patients with mild, moderate and severe OSAHS were 11, 7 and 22 cases, respectively, Comparing by MMSM, 2, 19 and 19 cases, respectively. Among seventeen volunteers diagnosed by PSG as normal subjects, 2 of them were diagnosed as mild OSAHS. The sensitivity of MMSM was 100.0% and the specificity was 88.2%. CONCLUSIONS: With regard to the diagnosis of OSAHS, MMSM is well consistent with PSG. The MMSM can be applied clinically as a monitor technique.

Key concepts: Medicine, Polysomnography, Hypopnea, Obstructive sleep apnea, Apnea, Respiratory disturbance index, Sleep (system call), Anesthesia

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
[Comparative analysis of polysomnography and micro-sensitive mattress-sleep monitor used for obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome]. — Research Paper | ScholarLens