6533b85dfe1ef96bd12bf2d2

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Reliability of automatic detection of AHI during positive airway pressure treatment in obstructive sleep apnea patients: A “real-life study”

Francesco FanfullaSimona ArcovioAleksandar PrpaCaterina PronzatoN. D'artavilla LupoMaria R. BonsignoreA. MaloviniM.p. Mogavero

subject

Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicinemedicine.medical_specialtyPolysomnographymedicine.medical_treatmentPolysomnographySettore MED/10 - Malattie Dell'Apparato RespiratorioResidualLikelihood ratios in diagnostic testingOSA03 medical and health sciencesResidual OSA0302 clinical medicineCPAPInternal medicinePositive airway pressuremedicine030212 general & internal medicineMechanical ventilationmedicine.diagnostic_testbusiness.industryEpworth Sleepiness ScaleSleep apnea.medicine.diseaserespiratory tract diseasesObstructive sleep apnea030228 respiratory systemBreathingCardiologybusiness

description

Introduction: Automatic event detection (AED) of residual apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) by ventilators is a current practice in sleep and mechanical ventilation Units but this methodology has not been validated in an unselected population of OSA patients. Aim of the present study was to assess in a “real-life” condition the reliability of AED during PAP therapy by the in-built software compared to full polysomnography during follow-up. Methods: We enrolled 300 OSA patients (105 F; AHI 45.3 ± 27.8) already on Positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy: 53% of the patients were on CPAP while other modalities were used in the rest of the sample. Results: Overall, the built-in software identified residual obstructive AHI (AHIPAP) > 5, 10 or 15 in 18.7, 8.6 or 4.6% of patients, respectively. By using AHIPAP, 28.4% of patients were wrongly classified as “well controlled” despite a residual AHIPSG>5 (6% considering a residual AHIVENT >15); 7% of patients were classified as not controlled while AHIPSG was <5 (1.4% considering a residual AHIVENT >15). Type of ventilation, ventilator parameters, adherence to treatment and level of baseline or follow-up Epworth Sleepiness Scale score were similar between groups. The sensitivity and positive predicted values were very low. Positive likelihood ratio appears adequate only for residual AHIPAP ≥10, but negative likelihood ratio was inconclusive for all the cut-off considered. Discussion: The results of the present study suggest a more cautious approach in the follow-up of OSA patients, since a protocol based only on AED detection and symptoms assessment may not be accurate especially for AHIPAP<15.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106303