Implementación del método simplificado Apnealink™Air® por médicos de atención primaria para el diagnóstico del síndrome de apnea-hipopnea durante el sueño / Implementation of simplified diagnostic method Apnealink™Air® to diagnose sleep apnea by general practioners of primary care

Objetivo: Valorar la interpretación de ApnealinkTM® (AL) por médicos de atención primaria (MAP), y la alcanzada mediante poligrafía respiratoria (PGR) en la Unidad de Sueño Hospitalaria (USH) en pacientes con alta probabilidad de síndrome de apnea e hipopnea del sueño (SAHS). Métodos: Se recogen aleatoriamente, durante tres meses, pacientes seleccionados en USH para estudio mediante PGR, con elevada probabilidad de SAHS que aceptaron repetir estudio mediante AL. La USH corregía la PGR según normativa SEPAR; el MAP corregía el AL y planteaba manejo. Se analizaron los pacientes con estudios válidos(tiempo registro ≥ 240 min) para ambos dispositivos, comparándose resultados. Se consideró el estudio AL automático y corregido, considerando un índice de desaturación de oxihemoglobina (ODI) al 4% (ODI 4%), (AL 4%) y al 3% (ODI 3%), (AL 3%). Cuando ODI 4% era ≥ 12/h, se estableció diagnóstico SAHS moderado/grave, suponiendo un IAH ≥ 15/h. Para interpretar AL con ODI 3% y tratamiento, se siguieron criterios SEPAR. Se compararon los resultados para las mismas variables del AL frente a PGR. Resultados: Se incluyeron 43 pacientes válidos para AL, 45 para PGR y 41 válidos para ambos estudios. El estudio AL 4% mostró 27 (62,8%) positivos (OR 5,5, p < 0,05), que el AL 3% corroboró con IAH ≥ 15/h. La PGR detectó 19 (42,2%) con IAH ≥ 15/h; el AL 3% detectó 31 (72%). El análisis del AL 4% y AL 3% comparado con PGR no mostró diferencias de diagnóstico o manejo. Se compararon los resultados para las mismas variables del AL frente a PGR.Conclusiones: Existe equivalencia entre las decisiones del MAP y la USH. El AL sería un buen método diagnóstico de SAHS en atención primaria, en pacientes seleccionados con alta probabilidad de SAHS (AU)

Objectives: To assess diagnosis and therapeutic decisions-making by General Practitioners (GP) using ApnealinkTM® (AL) in patients with high suspicion of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), in comparison with conclusions of Hospital Sleep Unit (HSU) specialists based on home respiratory polygraphy (PGR) results. Methods: This study involved patients previously selected by HSU for sleep testing by PGR. After it, patients were offered to complete AL test. PGR was checked at HSU; AL was checked by hemoglobin desaturation index of 4% (4% ODI), (4% AL) and 3% (3% ODI) patients with positive test to proceed with CPAP; and those with negative test for further testing. Automatically adjusted 4% AL, was considered valid as it was demonstrated to be equivalent to manual AL. Results were compared by automatically adjusted 3%AL against PGR results. Results: 48 patients were collected. 43 had AL valid test, 45 had PGR valid study, and 41 had both valid test. 27 patients (62,8%) had positive 4% AL (OR 5,51, p < 0,05), that showed AHI ≥ 15/h at 3% AL test; and 19 patients (42,2%) had a positive PGR test. 31 (72%) patients had a positive 3% AL. AL had shown to be a good screening method of SAHS. Conclusions: There is equivalence between the decisions of GP and HSU. AL is a good diagnostic tool and screening method for OSA in primary care when it is used in patients with high suspicion of moderate-severe OSA (AU)

[Implementation of simplified diagnostic method Apnealink™Air® to diagnose sleep apnea by general practioners of primary care]. / Implementación del método simplificado Apnealink™Air® por médicos de atención primaria para el diagnóstico del síndrome de apnea-hipopnea durante el sueño.

OBJECTIVES: To assess diagnosis and therapeutic decisions-making by General Practitioners (GP) using ApnealinkTM® (AL) in patients with high suspicion of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), in comparison with conclusions of Hospital Sleep Unit (HSU) specialists based on home respiratory polygraphy (PGR) results. METHODS: This study involved patients previously selected by HSU for sleep testing by PGR. After it, patients were offered to complete AL test. PGR was checked at HSU; AL was checked by hemoglobin desaturation index of 4% (4% ODI), (4% AL) and 3% (3% ODI) patients with positive test to proceed with CPAP; and those with negative test for further testing. Automatically adjusted 4% AL, was considered valid as it was demonstrated to be equivalent to manual AL. Results were compared by automatically adjusted 3%AL against PGR results. RESULTS: 48 patients were collected. 43 had AL valid test, 45 had PGR valid study, and 41 had both valid test. 27 patients (62,8%) had positive 4% AL (OR 5,51, p < 0,05), that showed AHI ≥ 15/h at 3% AL test; and 19 patients (42,2%) had a positive PGR test. 31 (72%) patients had a positive 3% AL. AL had shown to be a good screening method of SAHS. CONCLUSIONS: There is equivalence between the decisions of GP and HSU. AL is a good diagnostic tool and screening method for OSA in primary care when it is used in patients with high suspicion of moderate-severe OSA.