便携睡眠监测阻塞定位仪与多道睡眠仪及纤维喉镜检查的比较

目的研究整合了便携式多道睡眠仪（polysomnography，PSG）和上气道测压功能的便携睡眠监测阻塞定位仪（ApneaGraph）的临床应用价值。方法经PSG确诊为阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停低通气综合征（obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome，OSAHS）的32例患者，均行传统的上气道纤维喉镜检查判定阻塞部位。ApneaGraph进行整夜睡眠呼吸监测和同步上气道压力测定。上气道阻塞部位分为上下两部分：上部阻塞主要为腭后区，下部阻塞主要为舌后区。①分析ApneaGraph与传统PSG的呼吸暂停低通气指数（apnea hypopneaindex，AHI）之间相关性；②通过上气道压力测定，分析各平面阻塞特点，判定阻塞平面及计算各平面阻塞次数占气道阻塞总次数的比率，并与传统喉镜阻塞定位进行比较。结果呼吸事件分析：PSG和ApneaGraph测定的AHI（x^-±s）分别为（52．2±18．1）次／h和（50．2±16．0）次／h，两者高度相关（r=0．876，P〈0．001）。阻塞定位分析：①上气道测压：可见单纯上部阻塞和上下部联合阻塞两种模式，28例（87．5％）上部气道阻塞次数占气道阻塞总次数的比率〉50％，4例（12．5％）下部气道阻塞次数占气道阻塞总次数的比率〉50％；②纤维喉镜检查：可见单纯腭后区阻塞和腭后区、舌后区联合阻塞两种阻塞模式，其中18例单纯腭后区狭窄，13例腭后区和舌后区联合狭窄，1例腭后区和舌后区均未见明显狭窄；③上气道测压与传统纤维喉镜检查比较：上部（腭后区）阻塞时，两种检查方法的符合率为84．4％（27／32）；下部阻塞（舌后区）的符合率为53．1％（17／32）。结论ApneaGraph可作为便携PSG，对睡眠呼吸疾病作出初步定性诊断，并通过上气道压力测定，与纤维喉镜检查相结合，较好地判断睡眠时患者气道阻塞部位。

Comparison of diagnosis and localization methods in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: apneagraph vs polysomnography and apneagraph vs endoscopy

OBJECTIVE: ApneaGragh is a new device for simultaneous determination of obstructive sleep apnoeic events and continuous pressure measurements for localization of upper airway obstructive site. This study is to evaluate the clinical value of it. METHODS: From April to October in 2006, 32 obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients diagnosed by polysomnography (PSG) were examined by two methods: Endoscopy with müller's maneuver at daytime and continuous upper airway pressure recording with ApneaGraph at night in Peking Union Medical College Hospital. The upper airway obstructive sites determined by the two methods were compared. ApneaGraph transducer catheter contains two pressure sensors and two temperature sensors used for obstruction site determination and detection of apnoeic events during sleep. Obstructive sites were divided into upper (retropalatal oropharynx) or lower level (retroglossal region). The lower limit of upper airway obstruction was determined by observed pressure pattern. Used constituent retio to reflect the obstructive proportion of different levels. The apnea hypopnea index (AHI) measured by PSG and ApneaGraph were also compared. RESULTS: Two patterns of obstruction were observed in our group: 1. The site of obstruction was located only at the upper level. 2. The obstruction of upper and lower level all present. Site of obstruction determined by Apneagraph: 28 (87.5%) cases had predominant sites of obstructions in upper level (the constituent retio of retropalatal obstruction > 50%), the others in lower level (the constituent retio of retroglossal obstruction > 50%). Endoscopy localization of obstruction: 18 cases had retropalatal obstructions alone, 13 cases had obstructions of retropalate combined with retroglossa, only 1 patient didn't have obstruction. Defined the constituent retio higher than thirty percent the criteria of obstruction, then identical results were obtained by both methods in retropalateal segment in 27 (84.4%) of the patients, while in only 17 (53.1%) obstructions was determined by the both methods in retroglossal areas. The polysomnograpic AHI (x +/- s) was 52.2 +/- 18.1, versus 50.2 +/- 16.0 obtained by ApneaGraph. There was a significant correlation between them (r = 0.876, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ApneaGraph can identify the level of upper airway obstruction more accurate than fiberoptic pharyngoscopy. In the meantime, it also can serve as a portable PSG to diagnose sleep disordered breathing qualitatively.