This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:
Duce, Brett, Kulkas, Antti, Langton, Christian, Toyras, Juha, & Hukins,Craig(2017)Amsterdam positional OSA classification: the AASM 2012 recommendedhypopnoea criteria increases the number of positional therapy candidates.Sleep and Breathing, 21(2), pp. 411-417.
This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/102818/
c© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published inSleep and Breathing. The final authenticated version is available online at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11325-016-1432-y
Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-016-1432-y
Page 1 of 20
Title:
Amsterdam Positional OSA Classification: The AASM 2012 Recommended
Hypopnea Criteria Increases the Number of Positional Therapy Candidates
Authors: 5
Brett Duce1, 2, Antti Kulkas3,5, Christian Langton2, Juha Töyräs2,4,5, Craig Hukins1
Affiliations and addresses:
1Sleep Disorders Centre, Department of Respiratory & Sleep Medicine, Princess
Alexandra Hospital, Ipswich Rd, Woolloongabba, Qld, Australia 10
2Faculty of Science and Engineering, Queensland University of Technology
3Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Seinäjoki Central Hospital, Seinäjoki,
Finland
4Diagnostic Imaging Center, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland
5Department of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland 15
Email address, telephone and fax number of corresponding author:
(T) + 61 7 3176 5751
(F) + 61 7 3176 7096
20
Page 2 of 20
Abstract
Purpose: This study examined the effect of hypopnoea criteria on the prevalence of
positional obstructive sleep apnea (pOSA) identified under the Amsterdam Positional OSA 25
Classification (APOC) system.
Methods: 303 consecutive patients undertaking polysomnography (PSG) for the suspicion of
OSA were included in this retrospective investigation. PSGs were scored using both the
2007 American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) recommended hypopnea criteria
(AASM2007Rec) and the 2012 AASM recommended hypopnea criteria (AASM2012Rec). For each 30
hypopnea criteria OSA patients were grouped according to the APOC categories (I, II or II) or
else deemed non-APOC if they did not meet the APOC criteria. Outcome measures, such as
Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), MOS 36-item short-form health survey
(SF-36) and psychomotor vigilance task (PVT), were also compared between the groups.
Results: The AASM2012Rec increased the prevalence of OSA compared to AASM2007Rec. The 35
AASM2012Rec trebled the number of APOC I patients compared to AASM2007Rec (297%
increase) as well as increased the proportion of females in the APOC I group. AASM2012Rec
did not change the number of APOC II and APOC III patients. In fact the same patients were
present in these categories irrespective of hypopnea criteria. The proportion of non-APOC
patients proportionally decreased with the AASM2012Rec criteria. There were no differences in 40
outcome measures between the AASM2012Rec and AASM2007Rec groups.
Conclusions:
This study demonstrates that, compared to AASM2007Rec, AASM2012Rec increases the
prevalence of who could be successfully treated with positional therapy. The proportion of
females with pOSA also increases as a consequence of AASM2012Rec. 45
Keywords: Obstructive sleep apnea, hypopnea definition, positional OSA, Amsterdam
Positional OSA Classification, prevalence.
Page 3 of 20
INTRODUCTION
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a prevalent disorder characterized by repeated partial or 50
complete closure of the upper airway during sleep. The consequences of this disorder
include excessive daytime somnolence [1], reduced quality of life [2], neurocognitive deficits
[3] and cardiovascular disease [4]. Categorisation of OSA severity is based on the Apnea-
Hypopnea Index (AHI), which is the count of all apnoeas and hypopnoeas per hour of sleep
recorded. In some OSA patients the number and duration of apnoeas and hypopneas differ 55
significantly with body position during sleep [5]. These patients, described as having
positional OSA (pOSA), show greater upper airway collapsibility when lying supine opposed
to the lateral position [6]. The prevalence of pOSA varies according to how it is defined [7].
Using a strict supine-independent OSA (siOSA) definition of pOSA, where the total AHI is
>5/hr, the supine AHI:non-supine AHI ratio is ≥ 2:1 and the non-supine AHI of <5/hr, the 60
prevalence is approximately 30% [8]. A prevalence of approximately 60% occurs when a
more lenient supine-predominant OSA (spOSA) definition of total AHI is >5/hr and supine
AHI:non-supine AHI ratio is ≥ 2:1 [8].
In recent years, the creation of new positional sleeping devices has renewed interest in 65
pOSA. As a result, there have been a number of studies that have examined the efficacy and
compliance associated with positional therapy (PT) [9][10]. In addition to these PT trials,
some attention has directed towards identifying patients that would most benefit from PT.
Frank and colleagues [11] recently developed the Amsterdam Positional OSA Classification
(APOC) to provide clinicians with a framework based on the diagnostic polysomnogram 70
(PSG) results. In their study, they posit that multifactorial OSA patients (whose OSA severity
is influenced in part by sleeping position) as well as the true positional OSA patient can
benefit from position therapy.
The APOC system requires patients to spend a minimum of 10% of their time in their best 75
sleep position (BSP) and worst sleeping position (WSP), and then compares the AHI in these
positions. There are three different classification groups in the APOC system. APOC I is
Page 4 of 20
where an OSA patient has an AHI less than 5 events per hour in their BSP. APOC II requires
the AHI in their BSP to be greater than 5 events per hour but in a lower AHI severity category
than their WSP. Lastly, an APOC III requires an overall AHI greater than 40 events per hour 80
and achieve a 25% reduction compared to overall AHI when in their BSP.
In their follow up study, this same group characterised the prevalence of pOSA patients
according to their APOC system [12]. This study showed prevalence amongst OSA patients
to be 36%, 28%, 4% for APOC groups I, II and III, respectively. In this prevalence study, they 85
used the American Academy of Sleep Medicine’s (AASM) recommended hypopnoea criteria
from the 2007 Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events (AASM2007Rec). To
score a hypopnoea, the AASM2007Rec requires a ≥30% decrease in nasal pressure amplitude
with at least 4% SpO2 desaturation. This recommended hypopnea criteria has since been
replaced. The new recommended hypopnoea criteria (AASM2012Rec) is now defined as a 90
≥30% decrease in nasal pressure amplitude with at least 3% SpO2 desaturation or
associated EEG arousal. This change in hypopnoea criteria has been shown to not only
increase the AHI in OSA patients [13] but also increases the number of patients diagnosed
with OSA.
95
The effect of the AASM2012Rec hypopnea criteria upon prevalence within this APOC system is
unknown. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the influence that hypopnea
criteria has on the categorisation of pOSA patients according to the APOC system.
Page 5 of 20
METHODS 100
Patient Selection
All patients undertaking diagnostic PSG at the Sleep Disorders Centre, Princess Alexandra
Hospital for the clinical suspicion of OSA during the period of January 2015 to December
2015 were included in this study. Patients were excluded (a total of 207 patients were
excluded) if less than 2 hours of sleep were recorded, a split night treatment protocol 105
(diagnostic to PAP therapy) was implemented, a primary PSG channel (nasal pressure,
pulse oximetry, all EEG, respiratory effort, body position) contained too much artefact for
reliable analysis, supplemental oxygen was given during the course of the PSG or if another
sleep disorder (eg sleep hypoventilation) was the primary suspicion.
110
Polysomnography
PSG’s were recorded with the Compumedics Grael acquisition devices and Profusion 4.1
software (Abbotsford, Australia). The recording montage comprised of EEG (F4-M1, C4-M1,
O2-M1), left and right EOG (recommended derivation: E1-M2, E2-M2), chin electromyogram
(EMG, mental/submental positioning), modified lead II ECG, nasal pressure (DC amplified), 115
oronasal thermocouple, body position, thoracic and abdominal effort (inductive
plethysmography), pulse oximetry, left and right leg movement (anterior tibialis EMG) and
sound pressure (dBA meter: Tecpel 332). Body position was recorded using a triaxial
accelerometer (Compumedics, Abbotsford, Australia) and attached at the midline of the
lower sternum. Reliability of the body position recording was confirmed with synchronized 120
digital video recordings and corrected where necessary during the PSG scoring process.
Outcome Questionnaires and Vigilance Testing
Prior to undertaking the diagnostic PSG, patients completed the Epworth Sleepiness Scale
(ESS) [14], the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ) [15] and the Short 125
Form-36 quality of life questionnaire (SF-36) [16]. Patients also completed the 10 minute
version of the PEBL Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) [17][18] on an ASUS Transformer
Pad with attached keyboard.
Page 6 of 20
Polysomnogram Scoring Protocol 130
PSGs were de-identified and all previous respiratory event scoring was removed. PSGs were
then scored in random order using the AASM2012 criteria. Randomization of PSG’s was
performed using the freely accessible Randomizer website [19]. PSGs were scored with
Compumedics Profusion 4.0 (Build 410) software. The PSG scorer (BD) has over 15 years’
experience in scoring PSGs and participates regularly in intra- and inter-laboratory scoring 135
concordance activities.
APOC Criteria
Patients who met the International Classification of Sleep Disorders 3rd edition (ICSD-3) [20]
criteria for OSA were sorted into the relevant APOC groups. All PSGs must record at least 140
10% of total sleep time (TST) in their best sleeping position (BSP) and worst sleeping
position (WSP). To be classed as APOC I, patients had to have an AHI less than 5 events
per hour in their BSP. APOC II required the AHI in their BSP to be greater than 5 events per
hour but in a lower AHI severity category than their WSP. Lastly, an APOC III patient has to
have an overall AHI greater than 40 events per hour and achieved a ≥ 25% reduction in their 145
AHI when in their BSP. Patients who did not meet any of the APOC criteria were classified as
non-APOC patients.
Data and Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 6.05 (GraphPad Software, La 150
Jolla, CA). Normality in the distribution of data collected was determined by the D’Agostino-
Pearson omnibus K2 test [21]. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or median
and interquartile range for normally distributed and non-normally distributed data,
respectively. AASM2007Rec and AASM2012Rec group data were compared using either an
unpaired t-test or Mann-Whitney test for normally distributed and non-normally distributed 155
data, respectively. The proportion of male:female in each group was compared using a Chi
square test. Comparisons between APOC groups were performed using one-way ANOVA
Page 7 of 20
with Holm-Sidak multiple comparisons test or Kruskal Wallis with Dunn’s multiple
comparisons test for normally distributed and non-normally distributed data, respectively. A
p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. 160
Page 8 of 20
RESULTS
Patient Cohort
A total of 303 patients were included in this study. Demographic and PSG data for OSA
groups according to scoring criteria are presented in Table 1. Fifty-three percent of the 165
patient cohort had an AHI of ≥5/h when respiratory events were scored according to the
AASM2007Rec, whereas 84% of the same group achieved the same threshold when respiratory
events were scored with AASM2012Rec. The AASM2012Rec added another 94 patients above the
AHI ≥5/h threshold. OSA patients according to AASM2007Rec were slightly more obese
(p=0.03) and had a greater incidence of hyperlipidemia (p=0.02) and type 2 diabetes 170
(p<0.001) than OSA patients diagnosed according to AASM2012Rec. The PSG of OSA patients
according to AASM2007Rec had more N1 sleep (p=0.02) and more EEG arousals (p<0.001)
than their AASM2012Rec counterparts.
APOC Frequency 175
The distribution of OSA patients into their respective APOC groups is shown in Figure 1. The
number of OSA patients grouped into APOC I increased three-fold with AASM2012Rec (p=0.02).
As a proportion of the OSA population in the cohort, this translated to an 85% increase. The
number of OSA patients grouped into APOC II and APOC III did not change between
AASM2007Rec and AASM2012Rec. In fact, both AASM2007Rec and AASM2012Rec groups had exactly 180
the same patients in APOC II and APOC III categories. These two groups did not show an
appreciable change as a proportion of OSA patients. The non-APOC group, those OSA
patients that did not meet any of the APOC criteria, increased in number with AASM2012Rec,
but slightly decreased as a proportion of all OSA patients. This decrease was not statistically
significant. 185
APOC & non-APOC Group Characteristics
The characteristics of each APOC group and the non-APOC group are shown in Table 2.
Based on hypopnoea criteria, there was little difference in functional outcomes between the
two APOC I groups. However, there was gender redistribution with an increase in the 190
Page 9 of 20
number of females (p=0.001) meeting the APOC I criteria when the AASM2012Rec hypopnea
criteria was applied. As described before, there were no differences between APOC II and
APOC III groups since they contained the exact same patients. The two non-APOC groups
(AASM2007Rec non-APOC and AASM2012Rec non-APOC) did not show any differences with
respect to physical characteristics or functional outcomes between them. Both non-APOC 195
groups were - more obese than their APOC group counterparts were (p<0.0001 for
AASM2012Rec non-APOC vs AASM2012Rec APOC I, p=0.005 for AASM2007Rec non-APOC vs
AASM2007Rec APOC I and p=0.02 for AASM2007Rec non-APOC vs AASM2007Rec APOC II).
Page 10 of 20
DISCUSSION 200
In this study, we examined the effect of hypopnea criteria on the categorisation of pOSA
patients according to the APOC system. Our data shows that AASM2012Rec increases the
number and proportion of patients meeting the criteria for APOC I compared to AASM2007Rec.
Furthermore, the proportion of females meeting the criteria for APOC I also increased with
AASM2012Rec. The AASM2012Rec hypopnea criteria also did not change the number of patients 205
that were classified as APOC II and APOC III under the AASM2007Rec hypopnea criteria. In
fact, exactly the same patients were classified to these groups regardless of the hypopnea
criteria. Lastly, we find that the AASM2012Rec hypopnea criteria increases the number of
patients that do not meet the APOC criteria (non-APOC patients) but decreases the
proportion of non-APOC patients within the OSA patient group. 210
The APOC system was developed to aid the identification of true pOSA patients,
multifactorial OSA patients (where position plays some role in their OSA severity) and non-
positional OSA patients. Since it is a relatively new system, there is little data to describe the
prevalence of these APOC groupings. The developers of APOC did provide some 215
prevalence data as a follow up to their initial APOC development publication [12] albeit using
the AASM2007Rec hypopnea criteria. Our prevalence study shows some similarities and
differences with respect to theirs. As a proportion of the patient cohort, our study showed
less patients meeting the APOC criteria. This particular feature was present in our cohort
irrespective of the hypopnea criteria used. It is likely that differences in patient demographics 220
could explain these differences in APOC proportions. Although overall cohort body mass
index (BMI) was not provided by Ravesloot and colleagues [12], we suspect that the overall
BMI in our cohort is higher and thus could make more patients less likely to meet the APOC
criteria. This inverse relationship between BMI and prevalence of pOSA is clearly
demonstrated in the literature [7]. 225
The proportion of patients within each APOC category were however similar to those of
Ravesloot and colleagues [12] when the AASM2007Rec criteria was implemented. Once
Page 11 of 20
AASM2012Rec criteria were implemented to this cohort, we saw that the APOC proportions
changed significantly with the proportion of APOC I patients increasing significantly. Under 230
the APOC system, patients classified as APOC I are considered to be true positional OSA
patients. That is, in these patients the implementation of PT should be adequate to manage
their OSA disorder. The prevalence of APOC I patients and its changes with respect to
hypopnea criteria is interesting for a number of reasons. Under the AASM2007Rec criteria we
can see that the APOC I prevalence is similar to studies that used definitions of siOSA [7]. 235
This definition is somewhat similar in that it presumes that PT alone should be adequate to
treat these patients. When we applied the AASM2012Rec criteria to this cohort, we trebled the
number of patients classified as APOC I and thus presumably trebled the number of patients
that could treated successfully with PT. Therefore, in a financially-strained health system PT
could be of great benefit to managing the extra OSA patients diagnosed according to the 240
AASM2012Rec criteria as it is relatively inexpensive compared to PAP therapy. Interestingly,
trebling of APOC I numbers with AASM2012Rec does not correspond with the changes
observed in siOSA patient numbers in our previous study [8]. This would suggest subtle
differences exist between the definitions of APOC I and siOSA.
245
The prevalence of APOC II patients in our study was somewhat less than that of Ravesloot
and colleagues [12]. Indeed, it was interesting that the number of APOC II and APOC III
patients did not change with hypopnea criteria whatsoever. This was an unexpected finding.
We presumed that with the generalised increase in AHI associated with AASM2012Rec criteria
[13], some of the APOC I patients may move into a different APOC category. This obviously 250
did not occur and we can only suggest patient cohort differences as a reasonable
explanation. The import of this data however suggests that a relatively small number of
patients in our cohort, according to the APOC system, would be suitable for using PT as an
adjunct to other therapies (such as CPAP). The decrease in the proportion of patients that
did not meet any of the APOC criteria (non-APOC) together with the increase in the 255
proportion of APOC I patients suggests that the AASM2012Rec preferentially increases the
Page 12 of 20
frequency of events in the supine position. It remains to be seen whether these results will
increase the prescription of PT by sleep centres.
Another finding of this study was that the AASM2012Rec hypopnea criteria increases the 260
number of female patients classed as APOC I. These findings are congruent with our
previous study [8] into the effect of hypopnea criteria on the prevalence of pOSA. Indeed, we
found that the AASM2012Rec hypopnea criteria increased the proportion of females in both the
spOSA category and the siOSA category. As discussed in our previous study, there are
specific differences between males and females with OSA and how they present [22]. 265
Females are less likely to be present with apneas and have less severe SpO2 desaturations
[23, 24]. Our study results therefore suggest more females could be successfully treated with
PT alone. This is important for clinicians as females with minimally symptomatic OSA are
less likely to continue with CPAP in the long term [25]. This is an notable avenue for further
exploration. 270
Despite these gender differences between AASM2007Rec and AASM2012Rec hypopnea criteria,
there was very little to separate these APOC groups in terms of outcome data (ESS, SF-36,
FOSQ and PVT). There are two possible explanations for these similar outcomes. One
explanation is that the outcome measures are not appropriate for this group. This is probably 275
the least plausible explanation as the SF-36 and the FOSQ questionnaires have been used
in various sleep disorders research studies and demonstrate reasonable differences between
OSA and the normal population [15, 26] and improve with CPAP therapy [27, 28]. The other
explanation could be that there actually is no difference between the groups. The
AASM2007Rec hypopnea criteria, with its exclusion of EEG arousal as a consequence, has 280
been shown to lack sensitivity in symptomatic lean patients [29]. Thus it is possible that the
AASM2007Rec hypopnea criteria overlooked these pOSA patients despite their symptoms and
reduced quality of life.
Page 13 of 20
Our study is not without its limitations. These PSGs were examined from the one sleep 285
centre and may be subject to a demographic bias. This was evident when we examine our
APOC prevalence compared to the previous prevalence study by the developers of the
APOC system. Another limitation to this study was the standard use of a position sensor
attached to the trunk only. The measurement of body position from the trunk means that
patients could have their neck either oriented in the supine position or rotated into a lateral 290
position during that period. Evidence from van Kesteren and colleagues [30] have
demonstrated there can be vast differences in AHI magnitude with respect to head position
relative to trunk position. Thus, it is possible that our position sensors will incorrectly
categorise pOSA patients occasionally. At this moment in time, there is no position sensor or
sensors made to provide simultaneous position of the trunk and neck. 295
Conclusion
In conclusion, our study has shown that, according the APOC scheme, utilisation of the
AASM2012Rec hypopnea criteria will increase the number of patients classed as APOC I.
These results would suggest that an increased number of patients could be managed 300
successfully with PT. The change associated with AASM2012Rec hypopnea criteria is limited to
the APOC I category as the patients categorised in APOC II and APOC III were exactly the
same irrespective of hypopnea criteria. Thus there is no change in the number of patients
that could successfully use PT as an adjunct to their usual therapy. Studies to examine the
efficacy of the APOC system are still required. 305
Financial support
Antti Kulkas is supported by the Emil Aaltonen and Tampere Tuberculosis Foundations. The
sponsors had no role in the design or conduct of this research.
310
Conflict of Interest
Page 14 of 20
All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or
entity with any financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this
manuscript.
315
Ethical Approval
The Institutional Human Research Ethics Committee of the Princess Alexandra Hospital
approved this study (HREC/16/QPAH/021). All procedures performed in studies involving
human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or
national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments 320
or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent by the patients was
not required.
Page 15 of 20
REFERENCES 325
1. Gottlieb DJ, Whitney CW, Bonekat WH, et al (1999) Relation of sleepiness to respiratory
disturbance index: The sleep heart health study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 159:502–507. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.159.2.9804051
2. Lopes C, Esteves a M, Bittencourt LR a, et al (2008) Relationship between the quality of life 330 and the severity of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Brazilian J Med Biol Res 41:908–913.
3. Olaithe M, Bucks RS (2013) Executive dysfunction in OSA before and after treatment: a meta-analysis. Sleep 36:1297–305. doi: 10.5665/sleep.2950
4. Young T, Peppard PE, Gottlieb DJ (2002) Epidemiology of Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 165:1217–1239. doi: 10.1164/rccm.2109080 335
5. Cartwright RD (1984) Effect of sleep position on sleep apnea severity. Sleep 7:110–114. doi: 10.1378/chest.90.3.424
6. Ong JSL, Touyz G, Tanner S, et al (2011) Variability of human upper airway collapsibility during sleep and the influence of body posture and sleep stage. J Sleep Res 20:533–537. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2869.2011.00925.x 340
7. Joosten SA, O’Driscoll DM, Berger PJ, Hamilton GS (2014) Supine position related obstructive sleep apnea in adults: Pathogenesis and treatment. Sleep Med Rev 18:7–17. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2013.01.005
8. Duce B, Kulkas A, Langton C, et al (2016) The AASM 2012 Recommended Hypopnea Criteria Increases the Incidence of Obstructive Sleep Apnea but not the Proportion of Positional 345 Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Sleep Med. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2016.07.013
9. Bignold JJ, Mercer JD, Antic NA, et al (2011) Accurate position monitoring and improved supine-dependent obstructive sleep apnea with a new position recording and supine avoidance device. J Clin Sleep Med 7:376–383. doi: 10.5664/JCSM.1194
10. de Vries GE, Hoekema A, Doff MH, et al (2015) Usage of positional therapy in adults with 350 obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Sleep Med 11:131–137. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.4458
11. Frank MH, Ravesloot MJL, van Maanen JP, et al (2014) Positional OSA part 1: towards a clinical classification system for position-dependent obstructive sleep apnoea. Sleep Breath. doi: 10.1007/s11325-014-1022-9
12. Ravesloot MJL, Frank MH, van Maanen JP, et al (2015) Positional OSA part 2: retrospective 355 cohort analysis with a new classification system (APOC). Sleep Breath. doi: 10.1007/s11325-015-1206-y
13. Duce B, Milosavljevic J, Hukins C (2015) The 2012 AASM Respiratory Event Criteria Increase the Incidence of Hypopneas in an Adult Sleep Center Population. J Clin Sleep Med 11:1425–1431. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.5280 360
14. Johns MW (1991) A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: the Epworth sleepiness scale. Sleep 14:540–545. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2007.08.004
15. Weaver TE, Laizner AM, Evans LK, et al (1997) An instrument to measure functional status outcomes for disorders of excessive sleepiness. Sleep 20:835–43.
16. Ware JEJ, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. 365 Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483.
17. Mueller ST, Piper BJ (2014) The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) and PEBL Test Battery. J Neurosci Methods 222:250–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.10.024
18. Wilkinson RT, Houghton D (1982) Field test of arousal: a portable reaction timer with data storage. Hum Factors 24:487–493. 370
19. Urbaniak, G.C., and Plous S (2011) Research Randomizer (Version 3.0). https://www.randomizer.org. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
20. American Academy of Sleep Medicine (2014) International classification of sleep disorders, 3rd ed. American Academy of Sleep Medicine, Darien, IL
Page 16 of 20
21. D’Agostino R, Pearson ES (1973) Tests for Departure from Normality. Empirical Results for the 375 Distributions of b 2 and √b 1. Biometrika 60:613. doi: 10.2307/2335012
22. Shepertycky MR, Banno K, Kryger MH (2005) Differences between men and women in the clinical presentation of patients diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Sleep 28:309–14.
23. Ware JC, McBrayer RH, Scott J a (2000) Influence of sex and age on duration and frequency 380 of sleep apnea events. Sleep 23:165–70.
24. Mohsenin V (2001) Gender Differences in the Expression of Sleep-Disordered Breathing. Chest 120:1442–1447.
25. Turnbull CD, Bratton DJ, Craig SE, et al (2016) In patients with minimally symptomatic OSA can baseline characteristics and early patterns of CPAP usage predict those who are likely to 385 be longer-term users of CPAP. J Thorac Dis 8:276–281. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2016.01.54
26. Smith, Shneerson (1995) Is the SF 36 sensitive to sleep disruption? A study in subjects with sleep apnoea. J Sleep Res 4:183–188. doi: jsr004003183 [pii]
27. Bennett LS, Langford BA, Stradling JR, Davies RJ (1998) Sleep fragmentation indices as 390 predictors of daytime sleepiness and nCPAP response in obstructive sleep apnea. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 158:778–86. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.158.3.9711033
28. Antic NA, Catcheside P, Buchan C, et al (2011) The effect of CPAP in normalizing daytime sleepiness, quality of life, and neurocognitive function in patients with moderate to severe OSA. Sleep 34:111–9. doi: 10.1016/j.yneu.2011.05.056 395
29. Guilleminault C, Hagen CC, Huynh NT (2009) Comparison of hypopnea definitions in lean patients with known obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome ( OSAHS ). Sleep Breath 13:341–347. doi: 10.1007/s11325-009-0253-7
30. van Kesteren ER, van Maanen JP, Hilgevoord A a J, et al (2011) Quantitative effects of trunk and head position on the apnea hypopnea index in obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep 34:1075–400 81. doi: 10.5665/SLEEP.1164
Page 17 of 20
Table 1 Patient characteristics of OSA patients (AHI ≥ 5/h) according to hypopnea criteria. 405
Parameter AASM2007Rec AASM2012Rec p value
Number 161 255 Age, yrs 61 (50, 68) 58 (47, 67) 0.15 BMI, kg/m
2 36.6 (31.1, 42.5) 34.2 (29.7, 40.6) 0.03
ESS 9 (5, 13) 9 (5, 13) 0.75 Gender, M:F 103:58 149:106 0.22 Co-morbidities, % of patients Hypertension 53 46 0.16 Hyperlipidemia 37 27 0.02 Type 2 Diabetes 32 19 > 0.001 GERD 23 20 0.45 Depression 23 18 0.19 Ischemic heart disease 17 12 0.12 TST, min 276 ± 94 292 ± 91 0.07 Sleep Efficiency, % 64.5 (47.9, 76.3) 67.4 (53.9, 79.9) 0.06 Sleep Stage Proportions, % of TST NREM Total 84.7 ± 8.0 83.7 ± 8.1 0.26 N1 16.9 (10.3, 28.3) 13.4 (7.9, 23.1) 0.02 N2 47.2 ± 13.2 49.1 ± 13.0 0.17 N3 14.7 (4.9, 25.2) 16.6 (7.1, 25.3) 0.67 R 15.3 ± 8.0 16.3 ± 8.0 0.22 AHI, events/hr 15.9 (9.6, 37.9) 21.0 (11.5, 41.8) 0.04 ArI, events/hr 31.1 (19.8, 46.8) 23.4 (15.4, 37.5) > 0.001 Proportion of TST in WSP, % 42.0 (7.5, 72.5) 39.0 (12.0, 69.0) 0.81
Values are presented as median (inter-quartile range). BMI; body mass index, ESS; Epworth sleepiness scale, GERD; gastroesophageal reflux disease, TST; total sleep time, NREM; non-REM sleep, N1; stage 1 sleep, N2; stage 2 sleep, N3; stage 3 sleep, R; REM sleep, AHI; apnea-hypopnea index, AASM2012Rec; 2012 AASM 410 recommended hypopnea definitions, ArI; arousal index, SpO2; oxygen saturation, WSP; worst sleeping position.
Page 18 of 20
Table 2 Characteristics of patients within each Amsterdam Positional OSA Classification (APOC) category according to hypopnea criteria.
Parameter APOC I APOC II APOC III Non-APOC AASM2007Rec AASM2012Rec AASM2007/2012Rec AASM2007/2012Rec AASM2007Rec AASM2012Rec
Number 34 102* 23 1 103 130
Age 58 ± 13 54 ± 13 60 ± 14 72 58 ± 13 58 ± 13
Gender (M:F) 23:11 54:47* 13:10 1:0 66:37 81:49
BMI 33.7 (28.8, 36.8) 32.4 (28.2, 36.2) 33.9 ± 7.3 30.9 38.8 (32.7, 43.0)*^ 38.2 (31.7, 42.6)§
ESS 11 (4, 13) 10 (5, 14) 9 ± 6 5 9 ± 5 9 ± 5
FOSQ 12 (10, 17) 13 (10, 17) 14 ± 4 18 14 (11, 17) 14 (11, 17)
SF-36 MCS 36.7 ± 13.4 36.3 ± 13.5 38.3 ± 10.8 36.2 36.9 ± 11.7 37.2 ± 11.9
SF-36 PCS 37.4 (34.4, 46.3) 40.7 (32.8, 46.7) 41.7 ± 10.5 61.0 36.9 ± 11.9 37.2 ± 11.4
1/RT 2.5 ± 0.6 2.5 ± 0.5 2.6 ± 0.4 3.0 2.7 (2.3, 2.9) 2.6 (2.3, 2.9)
PVT Lapses 12 (4, 40) 11 (3, 29) 8 (2, 15) 3 8 (2, 21) 9 (2, 21)
1/Slowest 10% 1.5 (1.0, 2.1) 1.6 (1.0, 2.1) 1.8 (1.5, 2.3) 2.1 1.6 (1.0, 2.1) 1.7 (1.1, 2.1)
Values presented as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range) where appropriate. Since APOC II and APOC III groups contain exactly the same patients for each hypopnea criteria, these are presented as a single column. APOC, Amsterdam positional OSA classification; AASM2012Rec, AASM 2012 recommended hypopnea criteria; AASM2007Rec, AASM 2007 recommended hypopnea criteria; BMI; body mass index, ESS; Epworth sleepiness scale, FOSQ; functional outcomes of sleep questionnaire, SF-36 MCS; short-form 36 quality of life questionnaire mental component score, SF-36 PCS; short-form 36 quality of life questionnaire physical component score, 1/RT; PVT reciprocal response time, 1/Slowest 10%; the slowest 10% of the PVT reciprocal response time. * denotes p<0.05 compared to APOC I AASM2007Rec. ^ denotes p<0.05 compared to APOC II AASM2007Rec. § denotes p<0.05 compared to APOC I AASM2012Rec. .
Page 19 of 20
Figure 1 Distribution of OSA patients according to the Amsterdam Positional OSA Classification (APOC) for each hypopnea criteria.
AASM2012Rec, AASM 2012 recommended hypopnea criteria; AASM2007Rec, AASM 2007 recommended hypopnea criteria; non-APOC, OSA patients that did not meet any of the APOC criteria. **; denotes p < 0.01. All other comparisons were not statistically significant.
Page 20 of 20
Abbreviations
AASM, American Academy of Sleep Medicine;
AASM2012Rec, 2012 AASM recommended hypopnea definitions;
AASM2007Rec, 2007 AASM recommended hypopnea definitions;
AHI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index;
APOC, Amsterdam Positional OSA Classification;
ArI, EEG Arousal Index;
BMI, body mass index;
BSP, best sleeping position;
ECG, electrocardiogram;
EEG, electroencephalogram;
EOG, electrooculogram;
EMG, electromyogram;
HI, Hypopnea Index;
LCD, liquid crystal display;
NREM, non-rapid eye movement sleep;
N1, stage 1 sleep;
N2, stage 2 sleep;
N3, stage 3 sleep;
Non-APOC, patients not meeting any of the APOC criteria
OSA, Obstructive Sleep Apnea;
pOSA, positional obstructive sleep apnea;
PSG, polysomnography;
PT, positional therapy;
R, rapid eye movement sleep;
siOSA, supine independent OSA;
spOSA, supine predominant OSA;
WSP, worst sleeping position;