The success rate of split-night polysomnography and its impact on continuous positive airway pressure compliance

9Citations
Citations of this article
40Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objectives: With the increased volume of referrals of patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) for sleep studies, there is a great need for alternatives of the standard two-night polysomnography (PSG) like split-night PSG. Therefore, we conducted this study to determine the success rate of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) titration during split-night PSG, and to determine the predictors of titration success and the impact on subsequent CPAP compliance in Saudi patients with OSA. Materials And Methods: This is a prospective cohort study that included consecutive patients who were diagnosed with OSA and underwent a split-night PSG (n = 454). A subgroup of patients who used CPAP therapy, agreed to come for follow-up after 4 and 10 months (n = 130). This subgroup was compared with a matched group of OSA patients who underwent a two-night sleep study protocol (n = 80). Results: The study group had a mean age of 48.7 ± 13.3 years, body mass index (BMI) of 37.5 ± 10.1 kg/m 2 and apnea hypopnea index of 58.4 ± 35.0 events/h. Successful CPAP titration was achieved in 350 (77%) patients. In a full adjusted model, BMI >35 kg/m 2 and known cardiac disease remained significant predictors of a lower success rate of CPAP titration. After 10 months, 88% of the patients in the split-night protocol met the set criteria for good compliance versus 85% in the two-night protocol. Conclusion: Split-night protocol is an effective protocol for diagnosing OSA and titrating CPAP. CPAP compliance rate showed no difference between the split-night and the two-night protocols.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bahammam, A. S., Alanbay, E., Alrajhi, N., & Olaish, A. H. (2015). The success rate of split-night polysomnography and its impact on continuous positive airway pressure compliance. Annals of Thoracic Medicine, 10(4), 274–278. https://doi.org/10.4103/1817-1737.160359

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