ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: We attempted to compare the performance of 2 commercially available actigraphies with focus on sleep parameters, using polysomnography as standard comparison tool. METHODS: Fourteen normal volunteers (5 males and 9 females, mean age of 28+/-4.6 years) participated in this study. All the participants went through one night of polysomnography, simultaneously wearing 2 different kinds of actigraphies on each wrist. Polysomnographic and actigraphic data were stored, downloaded, and processed according to standard protocols and then statistically compared. RESULTS: Both ActiWatch (r) and SleepWatch (r) tended to overestimate the total sleep time, compared to the polysomnography. Sleep-Watch (r) tended to underestimate the sleep latency. The two actigraphs and the polysomnograph did not show significant difference of sleep efficiency, when compared with one another. In addition, all of the sleep parameters from the instruments showed linear correlations except in SleepWatch (r) 's sleep latency. The sleep parameters from the two actigraphs did not show much noteworthy difference, and linear relationships were found between the sleep parameters from the two actigraphs. There was no significant distinction in the results of the two different actigraphs. CONCLUSION: The results of two actigraphies can be used interchangeably since the sleep parameters of the two different actigraphies do not show significant differences statistically. Overall, it is not legitimate to use actigraphy as a substitute for polysomnography. However, since sleep parameters except sleep latency show linear correlations, actigraphy might possibly be used to follow up patients after polysomnography.
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Male , Actigraphy , Healthy Volunteers , Polysomnography , WristABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) has drawn increasing attention as medical community has become to be aware of its co-morbidities and complications, especially cardiovascular complications and excessive daytime sleepiness with accident proneness. As of now, polysomnography is the standard tool to diagnose sleep apnea and estimate the treatment validity. However, its being rather expensive and inconvenient, alternate diagnostic tools have been proposed including wrist actigraphy. So far, actigraphies have been adopted usefully to field-survey sleep apnea prevalence. In this study, we attempted in a sleep laboratory setting to assess the supplemental value of actigraphy in diagnosing OSAS. METHODS: This study was done at the Division of Sleep Studies, the Seoul National University Hospital. Thirty-seven clinically suspected cases of OSAS underwent the one-night polysomnography, simultaneously wearing an actigraphy on non-dominant wrist. We analyzed the data of 27 polysomnographically-proven OSAS patients (male: female 20: 7; age 47.6+/-12.9 years old; age range 23 to 72 years) with no other sleep disorders. We calculated RDI (respiratory disturbance index) from the polysomnography data and FI (fragmentation index) from the actigraphy data. Pearson correlation was calculated in order to compare FI with RDI and to evaluate the supplemental diagnostic value of the actigraphy. RESULTS: Mean total sleep time on polysomnography was 401.4+/-57.8 min (range of 274.0 to 514.1 min). Mean RDI was 21.7+/-20.4 /hour. Mean FI was 21.9+/-13.0 / hour. RDI and FI showed significant correlation (r=0.55, p< 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Wrist actigraphy in OSAS patients generates a comparable outcome to polysomnography, in measuring the nocturnal sleep fragmentation. The actigraphy could be used supplementally in inpatients, outpatients, and field survey subjects, if polysomnography is unavailable or impossible. In follow-ups related with nasal CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure), upper airway surgery, and oral appliance in OSAS patients, the actigraphy might play a more dominant role in the future.