Effectiveness of three sleep apnea management alternatives.

RATIONALE: Home respiratory polygraphy (HRP) may be a cost-effective alternative to polysomnography (PSG) for diagnosis and treatment election in patients with high clinical probability of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), but there is conflicting evidence on its use for a wider spectrum of patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and cost of OSA management (diagnosis and therapeutic decision making) using (1) PSG for all patients (PSG arm); (2) HRP for all patients (HRP arm); and (3) HRP for a subsample of patients with high clinical probability of being treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and PSG for the remainder (elective HRP arm). METHODS: Multicentric study of 366 patients with intermediate-high clinical probability of OSA, randomly subjected to HRP and PSG. We explored the diagnostic and therapeutic decision agreements between the PSG and both HRP arms for several HRP cutoff points and calculated costs for equal diagnostic and/or therapeutic decision efficacy. RESULTS: For equal diagnostic and therapeutic decision efficacy, PSG arm costs were 18% higher than HRP arm costs and 20% higher than elective HRP arm costs. HRP arm costs tended to be lower than elective HRP arm costs, and both tended to be lower than PSG arm costs if patient costs were omitted. CONCLUSION: Home respiratory polygraphy is a less costly alternative than polysomnography for the diagnosis and therapeutic decision making for patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnea. We found no advantage in cost terms, however, in using home respiratory polygraphy for all patients or home respiratory polygraphy for the most symptomatic patients and polysomnography for the rest.

Effectiveness of home respiratory polygraphy for the diagnosis of sleep apnoea and hypopnoea syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Home respiratory polygraphy (HRP) may be a cost-effective alternative to polysomnography for the diagnosis of sleep apnoea-hypopnoea syndrome (SAHS), but stronger evidence is needed. Normally, patients transport HRP equipment from the hospital to home and back, which may create difficulties for some patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine both the diagnostic efficacy and cost of HRP (with and without a transportation service moving the device and telematic transmission of data) in a large sample compared with in-hospital polysomnography. METHODS: Patients suspected of having SAHS were included in a multicentre study (eight hospitals). They were assigned to home and hospital protocols in random order. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed for manual respiratory polygraphy scoring protocol and different polysomnographic cut-off points. Diagnostic efficacies for several polysomnographic cut-off points were explored and costs for two equally effective alternatives were calculated. RESULTS: Of 366 randomised patients, 348 completed the protocol. The best receiver operating characteristic curve was obtained with a polysomnographic cut-off of the apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI)≥5. The sensitive HRP AHI cut-off point (<5) had a sensitivity of 96%, a specificity of 57% and a negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0.07; the specific cut-off (>10) had a sensitivity of 87%, a specificity of 86% and a positive LR of 6.25. The cost of HRP was half that of polysomnography. Telematic transmission costs were similar if the patients' costs were taken in to account. CONCLUSION: HRP is an alternative to polysomnography in patients with suspected SAHS. Telematic procedures may help patients with limited mobility and those who live a long way from the sleep centre.