RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) is essential but polysomnography (PSG) is expensive and time consuming. Oximetry has been used as a less expensive indicator of OSAHS. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical utility of the combination of oximetry with four different questionnaires: Stop, Stop Bang (S-B), Berlin questionnaire (BQ), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) in order to identify patients at risk for OSAHS compared with in-laboratory PSG. METHODS: Patients visiting a sleep clinic were prospectively studied. They completed Stop, S-B, BQ and ESS. Home oximetry and in laboratory PSG were performed within 3-20 days. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were included in the study (77.5% males, mean age 51.8±13.8 years, BMI 32.8±6.2 kg/m2, SaO2% awake 95.7±2). S-B had the highest sensitivity (Se) (97.5%) and negative predictive value (NPV) (62.5%) but the lowest specificity (Sp) (9%), whereas ESS had the best Sp (75%) and positive predictive values (PPV) (81.4%). The predictive values of questionnaires improved as the severity of OSAHS worsened. The predictive values of oximetry were high for severe but low for mild and moderate OSAHS. For that oximetry was combined with different sleep questionnaires in different OSAHS severity groups, but with no improvement in the predictive values. CONCLUSIONS: Oximetry may be used as a tool for identifying severe OSAHS. For mild and moderate disease the combination of questionnaires did not improve the diagnostic accuracy and especially for symptomatic patients with negative results, the need of PSG is essential.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Different clinical models and questionnaires have been used to evaluate patients with the highest OSAHS probability. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical utility of five different questionnaires--STOP, STOPBang (SB), Berlin Questionnaire (BQ), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and 4-Variable Screening Tool (4-V) - in a sleep clinic in order to identify patients at risk for OSAHS and to assess the best possible combination of these tools. METHODS: 1853 (74.4% males) patients (mean age 52±14 years; mean body mass index 32.8±7 kg/m2) visiting a sleep clinic were studied retrospectively. RESULTS: SB had the highest sensitivity (97.6%), the largest area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) (0.73; 95% CI, 0.7-0.76) and best OR (5.9; 95% CI, 3.6-9.5), but the lowest specificity (12.7%) for AHI > or =15. The 4-V > or = 14 had the highest specificity (74.4%) followed by ESS (67%). BQ had good sensitivity (87%), worse specificity (33%) than 4-V and ESS but better than STOP (13%) and SB (12.7%). The combination of questionnaires did not improve their predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: SB had the highest sensitivity, OR, and AUC, but rather low specificity, and 4-V the highest specificity. The combination of different questionnaires did not improve their predictive value.