Search

Introduction Sleep disruption is common among hospitalized patients due to psychological, physiological, and environmental reasons including illness, pain, anxiety, invasive interventions, frequent monitoring, and stimuli, especially noise and light. The AASM has published guidelines for the use of actigraphy in the outpatient setting, but there is a paucity of literature evaluating the validity of actigraphy in inpatients. We sought to summarize the evidence surrounding the use of actigraphy for inpatient sleep evaluation. Methods Systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Databases were queried by two independent reviewers for English-language studies published between 1990 and 2020. The initial search screened for all occurrences of “actigraphy AND sleep AND hospital” then was further refined to include studies of actigraphy used for monitoring in the inpatient hospital setting and exclude studies evaluating actigraphy in outpatient, rehabilitation, immediate postoperative, or intensive care unit settings. Results 1221 were screened from initial search results. 48 articles were identified through screening of abstracts. Full-text review of the articles was then completed. Of the 48 articles, a total of 12 studies examined general medical inpatients, 12 studies examined inpatients with neurologic disorders, 5 studies examined inpatients with cancer, 6 studies examined patients with mental illness, 9 studies examined elderly patients, and 4 studies examined other defined populations (pregnancy, trauma, liver transplantation, and hip arthroplasty). We summarize the qualitative findings of inpatient actigraphy as it relates to each of these populations. Commonly reported outcome measures were total sleep time (TST), number of nighttime awakenings, and concordance with polysomnography (PSG). Conclusion We summarize the existing evidence for the use of actigraphy in the inpatient setting. Actigraphy may provide a simple and effective method for screening of sleep disorders in the inpatient setting. With regard to the published literature, there is support for the use of actigraphy in the inpatient setting in certain patient populations, especially traumatic brain injury. Variation in data output of actigraphy devices and outcome measures presents a barrier to meta-anaylsis of pooled data. Standardization of outcome measures will allow for effective synthesis of future studies. Support (if any)

Introduction Sleep disruption is common among hospitalized patients due to psychological, physiological, and environmental reasons including illness, pain, anxiety, invasive interventions, frequent monitoring, and stimuli, especially noise and light. The AASM has published guidelines for the use of actigraphy in the outpatient setting, but there is a paucity of literature evaluating the validity of actigraphy in inpatients. The aim of this study is to evaluate sleep in hospitalized general medicine patients undergoing sleep medicine consultation using actigraphy and qualitative surveys. Methods A single-site prospective study in hospitalized medicine patients. Patients were observed with a Fitbit® Charge3 wrist actigraphy device overnight, then administered 7 surveys: Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ), qualitative questionnaires assessing sleep history, sleep hygiene, barriers to sleep, STOP-BANG, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and Patient-Health Questionniare-2 (PHQ-2). Actigraphy data including total sleep time, slow wave sleep time, and number of awakenings was compared with patient-reported data. Results In preliminary analysis, six patients met inclusion criteria and underwent sleep medicine consultation, overnight actigraphy, and completed 7 surveys. Based on subjective sleep history questionnaires, average total sleep time was 437 + 215 minutes. Actigraphy revealed average total sleep time was 228 + 80 minutes with an average of 3.6 nocturnal awakenings. Increased number of awakenings on actigraphy was not correlated with increased number of awakenings by survey. The most frequently reported barriers to sleep on patient surveys were pain and being woken up for labs or vital signs. The average STOP-BANG score was 6 out of 8 and average ESS was 14 out of 24. Conclusion Restorative sleep warrants consideration alongside complex medical care during hospitalization. Patients experience decreased total sleep time and increased number of awakenings while in the hospital compared with their subjective estimates of sleep at home. Actigraphy provides a non-invasive and reliable way to monitor some sleep parameters in the inpatient setting. An elevated STOP-BANG score could represent sleep disordered breathing and impact perceptions of sleep quality. Patient-identified barriers to sleep are targets for quality improvement. Future studies should compare inpatient actigraphy data to polysomnographic data and the effect of sleep-directed interventions on sleep quality in the hospital. Support (if any)

Introduction The remedē® system is a transvenous phrenic nerve stimulator used to treat central sleep apnea (CSA). It is a safe and effective implantable device that has demonstrated significant improvements in objective sleep and quality of life. While complex sleep apnea represents development of central sleep apnea during treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for obstructive sleep apnea, and has been well-described in the literature, we present a novel case of predominantly central sleep apnea treated with phrenic nerve stimulation with augmentation of obstructive events thereafter. This patient is, at the time of submission, being evaluated for hypoglossal nerve stimulation. Report of case(s) A 63-year-old male patient with a past medical history of hypertension, atrial fibrillation, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, GERD, obesity, and prior pulmonary embolism presented to the sleep medicine clinic with complaints of difficulty initiating and maintaining sleep, snoring, multiple nocturnal awakenings, excessive daytime sleepiness, and physical fatigue. On exam, BMI was 30.4, and airway classification was Mallampati 4. Split night polysomnography revealed severe mixed sleep apnea with an overall apnea hypopnea index (AHI) of 58.6 and a central AHI of 53.8 per hour after successful PAP titration at 7 cm H2O. He underwent phrenic nerve stimulator implantation and activation without complications. Phrenic nerve stimulation titration study four months after activation showed a normal central AHI of 4.6 per hour at a therapeutic voltage of 1.6 to 1.9mA, but significantly worse OSA with obstructive AHI of 53.1. In follow up, he reported intolerance of CPAP due to significant nasal congestion as well as asthma. Presently, he is scheduled for drug induced sleep endoscopy to visualize airway obstruction and is being evaluated for Inspire hypoglossal nerve stimulation and nasal surgery. Conclusion The treatment of sleep apnea has recently evolved rapidly with the development of implantable devices to treat both central and obstructive sleep apnea. We present a novel case of the first known patient to be considered for dual nerve stimulation for sleep apnea. Further study needs to be done to determine the safety and efficacy of concurrent implantable devices for the simultaneous treatment of OSA and CSA. Support (if any)