Comparing GENEActiv against Actiwatch-2 over Seven Nights Using a Common Sleep Scoring Algorithm and Device-Specific Wake Thresholds.

Demonstrating inter-device reliability is essential to use devices interchangeably, and accurately integrate, interpret, or compare data from different actigraphs. Despite this, there is a paucity of comparative literature over a timeframe exceeding one night. The aims of this study were to determine an optimal wake threshold for GENEActiv and to evaluate the concordance between Actiwatch-2 and GENEActiv using a common algorithm (Phillips Respironics). Data were collected from 33 individuals (20 female) aged 20-35 years (M= 25.33, SD = 4.69) across a total 213 nights. Participants wore both devices simultaneously and continuously for seven days. The sleep parameters of interest were: total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep onset latency, and wake after sleep onset. Exploratory analyses of sensitivity, specificity, overall accuracy, mean bias, and paired samples t-tests indicated an optimal wake threshold of 115 for GENEActiv, compared with Actiwatch-2 at the 40 (medium, default) threshold. Using these thresholds, sensitivity, and overall accuracy of GENEActiv were both good (86% and 78%, respectively), however specificity was relatively low (40%). There were no significant inter-device differences for any sleep parameters, and all absolute mean biases were small. Overall, the findings from this study provide the first empirical evidence to support the reliability of GENEActiv against Actiwatch-2 over multiple nights using a common algorithm with device-specific wake thresholds.

Does Nasal Obstruction Induce Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Healthy Women?

PURPOSE: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is less prevalent among women and is associated with different symptoms and consequences to OSA in men. The reasons for these differences are unknown and difficult to tease apart in clinical populations. If OSA could be temporarily induced in healthy men and women, the causes of some of these differences could be investigated. Nasal blocking has been used to induce OSA in healthy men but its effect in women has not been reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 14 healthy individuals (10 women) underwent in-laboratory diagnostic sleep studies on two occasions separated by a week. On one occasion, the nasal passages were blocked, whereas on the other occasion, participants slept naturally. In both conditions, a full-face mask was used to monitor respiratory events. Participants' self-reported sleepiness, mood and performance on a motor learning task were assessed in the evening and morning of both sleep studies. Furthermore, endothelial function and self-reported sleep quality were assessed in the morning following each study. RESULTS: Nasal blockage induced OSA in healthy young (age=22±3 years) and slim (BMI=22.2±3.2 kg/m2) women (control AHI=2.0±2.6, blocked AHI=33.1±36.7 events/hr, p=0.02). One night of OSA was associated with poorer self-reported sleep quality (p<0.001) and increased self-reported snoring (p<0.04), choking and gasping during sleep (p<0.001) but was not associated with alterations in mood, neurocognitive or endothelial function on the following morning. CONCLUSION: Nasal blockage induces OSA in healthy, young, and normal weight women. However, whether the induced OSA is representative of naturally occurring OSA and the technique useful for future studies is unclear.