Validation of the NoSAS Score for the Screening of Sleep-Disordered Breathing in a Sleep Clinic

被引:14
|
作者
Rong, Yi [1 ]
Wang, Shihan [1 ]
Wang, Hui [2 ]
Wang, Feng [3 ,4 ]
Tang, Jingjing [1 ]
Kang, Xiuhong [1 ]
Li, Guangxi [1 ]
Liu, Zhiguo [1 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Acad Chinese Med Sci, Guanganmen Hosp, Beijing 100053, Peoples R China
[2] Beijing Univ Chinese Med, Sch Management, Beijing 100029, Peoples R China
[3] Beijing Chaoyang Hosp, Beijing Inst Resp Med, Dept Resp & Crit Care Med, Beijing 100020, Peoples R China
[4] Capital Med Univ, Beijing 100020, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
APNEA SYNDROME; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK; TOOL;
D O I
10.1155/2020/4936423
中图分类号
R56 [呼吸系及胸部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background. There is a growing number of patients with sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) referred to sleep clinics. Therefore, a simple but useful screening tool is urgent. The NoSAS score, containing only five items, has been developed and validated in population-based studies. Aim. To evaluate the performance of the NoSAS score for the screening of SDB patients from a sleep clinic in China, and to compare the predictive value of the NoSAS score with the STOP-Bang questionnaire. Methods. We enrolled consecutive patients from a sleep clinic who had undergone apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) testing by type III portable monitor device at the hospital and completed the STOP-Bang questionnaire. The NoSAS score was assessed by reviewing medical records. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of both screening tools were calculated at different AHI cutoffs to compare the performance of SDB screening. Results. Of the 596 eligible patients (397 males and 199 female), 514 were diagnosed with SDB. When predicting overall (AHI >= 5), moderate-to-severe (AHI >= 15), and severe (AHI >= 30) SDB, the sensitivity and specificity of the NoSAS score were 71.2, 80.4, and 83.1% and 62.4, 49.3, and 40.7%, respectively. At all AHI cutoffs, the AUC ranged from 0.688 to 0.715 for the NoSAS score and from 0.663 to 0.693 for the STOP-Bang questionnaire. The NoSAS score had the largest AUC (0.715, 95% CI: 0.655-0.775) of diagnosing SDB at AHI cutoff of >= 5 events/h. NoSAS performed better in discriminating moderate-to-severe SDB than STOP-Bang with a marginally significantly higher AUC (0.697 vs. 0.663, P=0.046). Conclusion. The NoSAS score had good performance on the discrimination of SDB patients in sleep clinic and can be utilized as an effective screening tool in clinical practice.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] SLEEP-DISORDERED BREATHING
    APPS, MCP
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MEDICINE, 1983, 30 (05): : 339 - &
  • [22] Sleep-Disordered Breathing
    Kuzniar, Tomasz J.
    Kasibowska-Kuzniar, Kamilla
    DM DISEASE-A-MONTH, 2011, 57 (08): : 394 - 402
  • [23] Screening for sleep-disordered breathing in a bariatric population
    Reed, Kate
    Pengo, Martino
    Steier, Joerg
    EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, 2015, 46
  • [24] Sleep-disordered breathing
    Berlowitz, DJ
    Brown, DJ
    ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 2002, 83 (09): : 1325 - 1325
  • [25] Sleep-disordered breathing
    Boudewyns, A.
    Vanderveken, O.
    Bertrand, B.
    Rombaux, Ph.
    B-ENT, 2007, : 81 - 91
  • [26] Sleep-disordered breathing
    Teculescu, D
    Mur, JM
    REVUE D EPIDEMIOLOGIE ET DE SANTE PUBLIQUE, 1997, 45 (01): : 64 - 77
  • [27] Sleep-disordered breathing
    Terris, DJ
    OTOLARYNGOLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2003, 36 (03) : XI - XII
  • [28] Identification of subjects with high probability of sleep-disordered breathing in a non-sleepy general population: The NoSAS score
    Marti-Soler, H.
    Haba-Rubio, J.
    Heinzer, R.
    SWISS MEDICAL WEEKLY, 2015, 145 : 11 - 11
  • [29] POLYSOMNOGRAPHY OR SCREENING STUDIES FOR SLEEP-DISORDERED BREATHING
    STRADLING, JR
    BULLETIN EUROPEEN DE PHYSIOPATHOLOGIE RESPIRATOIRE-CLINICAL RESPIRATORY PHYSIOLOGY, 1986, 22 : S176 - S176
  • [30] Sleep-disordered Breathing
    Moeller, A.
    PNEUMOLOGIE, 2020, 74 (04): : 222 - 229