Evaluación de los cuestionarios de sueño en la pesquisa de pacientes con síndrome de apneas obstructivas del sueño

  • SALDÍAS PEÑAFIEL F
  • GASSMANN PONIACHIK J
  • CANELO LÓPEZ A
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Simple but accurate tools should be used to identify patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), aiming at an early detection and prevention of serious consequences. AIM To assess the predictive value of four sleep questionnaires (Berlin, Epworth Sleepiness Scale [ESS], STOP, and STOP-Bang) in the screening of patients with OSAS. MATERIAL AND METHODS The four sleep questionnaires were administered to 1,050 snorers aged 56 ± 15 years (68% males) assessed at a sleep clinic. An overnight unattended respiratory polygraphy was performed to all patients to confirm the diagnosis of OSAS. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the four questionnaires were calculated. RESULTS Eighty four percent of participants had OSAS. The clinical variables associated with OSAS risk were age, male gender, hypertension, overweight, cervical circumference, waist/hip ratio, history of snoring, witnessed apneas and nycturia. Eighty-three, 86, 92 and 46 % of cases were classified as having a high risk for OSAS, according to the Berlin, STOP and STOP-Bang questionnaires and ESS, respectively. STOP and STOP-Bang questionnaires had the highest sensitivity to predict OSAS (88 and 95%, respectively) while the Flemons Index had the highest specificity (82%). CONCLUSIONS Sleep questionnaires were able to identify patients with a high risk for OSAS but without accurately excluding those at low risk.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

SALDÍAS PEÑAFIEL, F., GASSMANN PONIACHIK, J., CANELO LÓPEZ, A., URIBE MONASTERIO, J., & DÍAZ PATIÑO, O. (2018). Evaluación de los cuestionarios de sueño en la pesquisa de pacientes con síndrome de apneas obstructivas del sueño. Revista Médica de Chile, 146(10), 1123–1134. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0034-98872018001001123

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free