Spanish 
Chinese 
Russian 
German 
French 
Japanese 
Portuguese 
Hindi Research Article, J Sleep Disor Treat Care S Vol: 0 Issue: 1
Home Sleep Apnea Study of Patients with Limited to No Mobility
| Bachour A1*, Aalto T2 and Maasilta P3 |
| 1Senior Consultant in Pulmonary and Sleep Medicine, University of Helsinki, Sleep Unit, Heart and lung centre, Helsinki University Hospital, Finland |
| 2RN Sleep Nurse, University of Helsinki, Sleep Unit, Helsinki University Hospital, Finland |
| 3Associate Professor, Chief Deputy of the Pulmonary Medicine Department, University of Helsinki, Sleep Unit, Heart and lung centre, Helsinki University Hospital, Finland |
| Corresponding author : Bachour A, MD PhD, Senior Consultant in Pulmonary and Sleep Medicine, Sleep Unit, P.O.BOX 160, Helsinki University Hospital, 00029, HUS, Finland Tel: +358 504 272 273 Fax: +358 94 71 86 497 E-mail: adel.bachour@hus.fi |
| Received: February 08, 2016 Accepted: March 12, 2016 Published: March 12, 2016 |
| Citation: Bachour A, Aalto T, Maasilta P (2016) Home Sleep Apnea Study of Patients with Limited to No Mobility. J Sleep Disor: Treat Care S1. doi:10.4172/2325-9639.S1-001 |
Abstract
Introduction: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common and under-recognized cause of excessive daytime sleepiness that can be easily and effectively treated. The gold standard for diagnosing OSA is attended overnight Level I polysomnography (PSG). This method has proved accurate with a low failure rate because technical staff attends the study. However, PSG is considered relatively expensive and technically complex. Portable monitoring has served as an alternative diagnostic test for OSA based, in part, on the premise that it is less expensive and quicker to deploy than in-laboratory PSG.
Objectives: To compare the technical success rate of home sleep apnea study between two approaches: first, the standard method performed at the sleep unit in non-restricted mobility patients (Standard); second, instruction is given at the patients’ residence residence for restricted to no-mobility patients.
Result: We performed 37 PR studies. 15 of which took place in other hospital wards and 22 in skilled nursing facilities. For the control group, we included 38 consecutive STANDARD patients.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the concept of conducting a sleep apnea study at the residence of patients with limited to no mobility is not only practical, but has also offers some benefits over the standard home sleep apnea study procedure.
