Is video demonstration for type III sleep studies performance worse than technical face-to-face teaching?

PURPOSE

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is the most common sleep-disordered breathing. The high prevalence makes its diagnosis a priority. To perform type III sleep studies, patients usually receive instructions from a technician. The switch to instructions through a video could save professionals time and make OSA diagnosis more accessible. This study aimed to compare the technical quality of type III sleep studies when instructions are provided by face-to-face technical teaching or via video.

METHODS

One hundred consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years with suspected OSA were randomly assigned to receive device placement instructions in person by a technician or through video (50 in each group). The overall quality of the sleep studies was analyzed by determining the number of technically invalid studies. The recording quality of four sensors (pulse oximeter, nasal flow cannula, chest, and abdominal bands) was evaluated by checking for signal artifacts.

RESULTS

The majority (86%) of the studies were valid. 20% of the studies in the face-to-face group and 8% of the studies in the video-instruction group were technically invalid, but no statistically significant difference was found (p = 0.148). The quality of the oximetry signal was better in those who received video instructions (p = 0.05). Regarding the recording quality of the remaining sensors, no significant differences were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Type III sleep studies with previous explanation through a video are as effective as those with an explanation performed by a technician, with associated advantages, without increased errors. The quality of the oximetry signal was better in the video group, a critical signal for OSA diagnosis.