Ng Yvonne, Joosten Simon A, Edwards Bradley A, Turton Anthony, Romios Helen, Samarasinghe Thilini, Landry Shane, Mansfield Darren R, Hamilton Garun S
Department of Lung and Sleep Medicine, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia.
School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
J Clin Sleep Med. 2017 Apr 15;13(4):599-605. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.6552.
The aim of this study was to compare the oxygen desaturation index (ODI) generated by two different sleep software systems.
Participants undergoing diagnostic polysomnography for suspected obstructive sleep apnea underwent simultaneous oximetry recording using the ResMed ApneaLink Plus device (AL) and Compumedics Profusion PSG3 system (Comp). The ODI was calculated by the algorithms in the respective software of each system. To determine if differences were due to algorithm or recording devices, the Comp software was also used to generate ODI values using oximetry data from the AL.
In 106 participants, there was good correlation but poor agreement in the ODI generated by the two systems. AL ODI values tended to be higher than Comp ODI values, but with significant variability. For ODI4%, bias was 4.4 events/h (95% limits of agreement -5.8 to 14.6 events/h). There was excellent correlation and agreement when the same oximetry raw data was analyzed by both systems. For ODI4%, bias was 0.03 events/h (95% limits of agreement -2.7 to 2.8 events/h). Similar results were evident when the ODI3% was used.
There is a clinically significant difference in ODI values generated by the two systems, likely due to device signal processing, rather than difference in ODI calculation algorithms.
本研究旨在比较两种不同睡眠软件系统生成的氧饱和度下降指数(ODI)。
对疑似阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停而接受诊断性多导睡眠监测的参与者,使用瑞思迈ApneaLink Plus设备(AL)和Compumedics Profusion PSG3系统(Comp)同时进行血氧饱和度记录。ODI由每个系统各自软件中的算法计算得出。为确定差异是由于算法还是记录设备所致,Comp软件还用于利用来自AL的血氧饱和度数据生成ODI值。
在106名参与者中,两个系统生成的ODI之间存在良好的相关性,但一致性较差。AL的ODI值往往高于Comp的ODI值,但存在显著变异性。对于ODI4%,偏差为4.4次事件/小时(95%一致性界限为-5.8至14.6次事件/小时)。当两个系统分析相同的血氧饱和度原始数据时,存在极好的相关性和一致性。对于ODI4%,偏差为0.03次事件/小时(95%一致性界限为-2.7至2.8次事件/小时)。使用ODI3%时也有类似结果。
两个系统生成的ODI值存在临床显著差异,可能是由于设备信号处理,而非ODI计算算法的差异。