Comparison of Full Versus Short Induced-Sleep Polysomnography for the Diagnosis of Sleep Apnea

Objectives/Hypothesis: Polysomnography (PSG) is the gold-standard method for diagnosing obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). However, the gap between demand and capacity in performing PSG is a major health-care problem. We sought to validate a short day-time induced sleep for the diagnosis of OSA. Study Design: Prospective diagnostic method validation. Methods: We studied 25 consecutive patients referred to the sleep laboratory and 15 healthy volunteers. All subjects were evaluated by means of full overnight PSG (Full-PSG) and short day-time induced-sleep PSG (Induced-PSG). Sleep was monitored during both procedures (Embla, 16 channels). Sleep was induced by slow intravenous drip infusion of midazolam. Results: The population studied (N = 40) was 60% male (mean age, 42 +/- 10 years; body mass index, 29 +/- 6.5 kg/m(2)). Sleep was successfully induced in all subjects, and no complications were observed (midazolam doses, 6.2 +/- 3.8 mg; time of induced sleep 41.5 +/- 18.9 minutes). The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and minimal oxygen saturation during Full-PSG versus Induced-PSG were similar: median AHI (with 25%-75% interquartile range) was 13 (3-35) events per hour versus 17 (4-36) events per hour, and median oxygen saturation was 84% (75-90) versus 85% (76-92); P = .89 and P = .53, respectively. The majority of the respiratory events during induced sleep were obstructive and similar to those observed during Full-PSG. AHI and lowest oxygen saturation during Induced-PSG correlated significantly with Full-PSG (r = 0.67 and r = 0.77, respectively). Sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of OSA (AHI > 15 events per hour) by Induced-PSG were 0.83 and 0.72, respectively. Conclusions: Induced-PSG by midazolam during the day is safe and correlates with Full-PSG; it therefore is a promising alternative method in the diagnosis of OSA.

Relationship between changes in insulin sensitivity and associated cardiovascular disease risk factors in thiazolidinedione-treated, insulin-resistant, nondiabetic individuals: pioglitazone versus rosiglitazone

This study compared the effects of administering rosiglitazone (RSG) vs pioglitazone (PIO) oil cardiovascular disease risk factors in insulin-resistant. nondiabetic individuals with no apparent disease. Twenty-two nondiabetic, apparently healthy individuals, classified as being insulin resistant oil the basis of a steady-state plasma glucose concentration of at least 10 mmol/L during the insulin suppression test, were treated with either RSG or 1110 for 3 months. Measurements were made before and after drug treatment of weight; blood pressure; fasting and daylong glucose, insulin, and free fatty acid (FFA) levels; and lipid and lipoprotein concentrations. Insulin sensitivity (steady-state plasma glucose concentration) significantly improved in both treatment groups, associated with significant decreases in daylong plasma concentrations of glucose, insulin, and FFA. Diastolic blood pressure fell somewhat in both groups, and this change reached significance in those receiving PIO. Improvement in lipid metabolism was confined to the PIO-treated group, signified by a significant decrease in plasma triglyceride concentration, whereas triglyceride concentration did not decline in the RSG-treated group, and these individuals also had increases in total (P = .047) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P = .07). In conclusion, RSG and PIO appear to have comparable abilities to improve insulin sensitivity and lower daylong glucose, insulin, and FFA concentrations in nondiabetic, insulin-resistant individuals. However, despite these similarities, their effects on lipoprotein metabolism seem to be quite different, with beneficial effects confined to PIO-treated individuals. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.