【24h】

Use of Chest Wall EMG to Classify Hypopneas as Obstructive or Central

机译:使用胸壁肌电图将呼吸不足分类为阻塞性或中枢性

获取原文
       

摘要

Study Objectives:To compare classification of hypopneas as obstructive or central based on an effort signal derived from surface chest wall electromyography (CW-EMG-EF) coupled with airflow amplitude versus classification using The AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events: Rules, Terminology and Technical Specifications (AASM Scoring Manual) criteria; and to characterize hypopneas classified as obstructive versus central using a resistance surrogate.Methods:CW-EMG was recorded in the eighth intercostal space at the right midaxillary line. Five hypopneas were randomly selected from 65 consecutive adult clinical positive airway pressure titration studies meeting study criteria. A blinded scorer classified the hypopneas based on two groups of signals: Group 1: positive airway pressure flow (PAP flow), chest and abdominal effort, and snoring; or Group 2: smoothed PAP flow (for blinding amplitude but not flattening visible) and effort (CW-EMG-EF). A resistance surrogate (CW-EMG-EF / PAP flow) normalized to a pre-event breath was compared between obstructive and central hypopneas classified by AASM Scoring Manual criteria.Results:The percentage agreement (Group 1 versus Group 2) was 92% and the kappa was 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.85). The resistance surrogate was significantly higher in obstructive hypopneas versus central hypopneas during the first and second half of hypopneas. The resistance surrogate (mean standard deviation) for the second half of hypopnea was obstructive: 7.59 7.24 versus central: 1.27 0.56, P .001). The resistance surrogate increased from the first to second half of hypopnea only for obstructive hypopneas.Conclusions:CW-EMG provides a useful complementary signal for hypopnea classification and a resistance surrogate based on CW-EMG is much higher in hypopneas classified as obstructive by AASM Scoring Manual criteria.
机译:研究目标:基于AASM睡眠和相关事件评分手册,根据表面胸壁肌电图(CW-EMG-EF)产生的努力信号以及气流幅度比较呼吸不足的分类为阻塞性还是中枢性。 ,术语和技术规范(AASM评分手册)标准;方法:在右腋中线第8肋间间隙记录CW-EMG。从连续65项符合研究标准的成人临床气道正压滴定研究中随机选择5次呼吸不足。失明的评分者根据两组信号对呼吸不足进行了分类:第1组:气道正压通气(PAP流量),胸腹力和打呼;。或第2组:平滑的PAP流量(振幅变大,可见部分不平坦)和力度(CW-EMG-EF)。根据AASM评分手册标准对阻塞性和中枢性呼吸不足进行了比较,以标准化的事前呼吸阻力替代(CW-EMG-EF / PAP流量)进行了比较。结果:一致性百分比(组1与组2)为92%, kappa为0.75(95%置信区间0.65至0.85)。在呼吸不足的前半部分和后半部分,阻塞性呼吸不足的阻力替代值明显高于中枢性呼吸不足。低通气后半段的阻力替代(平均标准偏差)是阻塞性的:7.59 7.24 vs中枢性:1.27 0.56,P 0.001)。结论:CW-EMG为呼吸不足的分类提供了有用的补充信号,而基于CW-EMG的阻力替代在由ASM评分为阻塞性呼吸不足时要高得多。手动标准。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号