Validation of the oxygen desaturation index in the diagnostic workup of obstructive sleep apnea

Introduction: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common, and diagnosis requires expensive and laborious testing to assess the apnea hypopnea index (AHI). We performed an analysis to explore the relationship between the oxygen desaturation index (ODI) as measured with pulse oximetry and the AHI in our large portable monitoring (PM) database to find an optimal cutoff value for the ODI in order to be able to exclude AHI ≥ 5 on PM. Methods: Three thousand four hundred thirteen PM recordings were randomly divided into a training set (N = 2281) and a test set (N = 1132). The optimal cutoff for the ODI to exclude an AHI ≥ 5 on PM was determined in the training set and subsequently validated in the test set. Results: Area under the curve of the ODI to exclude an AHI ≥ 5 on PM was 0.997 in the training set and 0.996 in the test set. In the training set, the optimal cutoff to predict an AHI < 5 was an ODI < 5. Using this cutoff in the test set provided a sensitivity of 97.7%, a specificity of 97.0%, a positive predictive value of 99.2%, and a negative predictive value of 91.4%. Conclusion: An ODI < 5 predicts an AHI < 5 with high sensitivity and specificity when measured simultaneously using the same oximeter during PM recording

International consensus on lung function testing during COVID-19 pandemic and beyond

COVID-19 has negatively affected the delivery of respiratory diagnostic services across the world due to the potential risk of disease transmission during lung function testing. Community prevalence, reoccurrence of COVID-19 surges, and the emergence of different variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus have impeded attempts to restore services. Finding consensus on how to deliver safe lung function services for both patients attending and for staff performing the tests are of paramount importance. This international statement presents the consensus opinion of 23 experts in the field of lung function and respiratory physiology balanced with evidence from the reviewed literature. It describes a robust roadmap for restoration and continuity of lung function testing services during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Important strategies presented in this consensus statement relate to the patient journey when attending for lung function tests. We discuss appointment preparation, operational and environmental issues, testing room requirements including mitigation strategies for transmission risk, requirement for improved ventilation, maintaining physical distance, and use of personal protection equipment. We also provide consensus opinion on precautions relating to specific tests, filters, management of special patient groups, and alternative options to testing in hospitals. The pandemic has highlighted how vulnerable lung function services are and forces us to re-think how long term mitigation strategies can protect our services during this and any possible future pandemic. This statement aspires to address the safety concerns that exist and provide strategies to make lung function tests and the testing environment safer when tests are required

Effort and work-of-breathing parameters strongly correlate with increased resistance in an animal model

Background: Effort of Breathing (EOB) calculations may be a reliable alternative to Work of Breathing (WOB) calculations in which Respiratory Inductance Plethysmography (RIP) replaces spirometry. We sought to compare EOB and WOB measurements in a nonhuman primate model of increasing extrathoracic inspiratory resistance simulating upper airway obstruction (UAO).Methods: RIP, spirometry, and esophageal manometry were measured in spontaneously breathing, intubated Rhesus monkeys utilizing 11 calibrated resistors randomly applied for 2-min. EOB was calculated breath-by-breath as Pressure Rate Product (PRP) and Pressure Time Product (PTP). WOB was calculated from the Pressure-Volume curve based on spirometry (WOBSPIR) or RIP flow (WOBRIP).Results: WOB, PRP and PTP showed similar linear increases when exposed to higher levels of resistive loads. When comparing WOBSPIR to WOBRIP, a similar strong correlation was seen for both signals as resistance increased and there were no statistically significant differences.Conclusion: EOB and WOB parameters utilizing esophageal manometry and RIP, independent of spirometry, showed a strong correlation as a function of increasing inspiratory resistance in nonhuman primates. This allows several potential monitoring possibilities for non-invasively ventilated patients or situations where spirometry is not available. Impact: EOB and WOB parameters showed a strong correlation as a function of increasing inspiratory resistance in nonhuman primates.There was a strong correlation between spirometry-based WOB versus RIP-based WOB.To date, it has remained untested as to whether EOB is a reliable alternative for WOB and if RIP can replace spirometry in these measurements.Our results enable additional potential monitoring possibilities for non-invasively ventilated patients or situations where spirometry is not available.Where spirometry is not available, there is no need to apply a facemask post extubation to a spontaneously breathing, non-intubated infant to make objective EOB measurements.</p

Effort and work-of-breathing parameters strongly correlate with increased resistance in an animal model

Background: Effort of Breathing (EOB) calculations may be a reliable alternative to Work of Breathing (WOB) calculations in which Respiratory Inductance Plethysmography (RIP) replaces spirometry. We sought to compare EOB and WOB measurements in a nonhuman primate model of increasing extrathoracic inspiratory resistance simulating upper airway obstruction (UAO).Methods: RIP, spirometry, and esophageal manometry were measured in spontaneously breathing, intubated Rhesus monkeys utilizing 11 calibrated resistors randomly applied for 2-min. EOB was calculated breath-by-breath as Pressure Rate Product (PRP) and Pressure Time Product (PTP). WOB was calculated from the Pressure-Volume curve based on spirometry (WOBSPIR) or RIP flow (WOBRIP).Results: WOB, PRP and PTP showed similar linear increases when exposed to higher levels of resistive loads. When comparing WOBSPIR to WOBRIP, a similar strong correlation was seen for both signals as resistance increased and there were no statistically significant differences.Conclusion: EOB and WOB parameters utilizing esophageal manometry and RIP, independent of spirometry, showed a strong correlation as a function of increasing inspiratory resistance in nonhuman primates. This allows several potential monitoring possibilities for non-invasively ventilated patients or situations where spirometry is not available. Impact: EOB and WOB parameters showed a strong correlation as a function of increasing inspiratory resistance in nonhuman primates.There was a strong correlation between spirometry-based WOB versus RIP-based WOB.To date, it has remained untested as to whether EOB is a reliable alternative for WOB and if RIP can replace spirometry in these measurements.Our results enable additional potential monitoring possibilities for non-invasively ventilated patients or situations where spirometry is not available.Where spirometry is not available, there is no need to apply a facemask post extubation to a spontaneously breathing, non-intubated infant to make objective EOB measurements.</p

Effort and work-of-breathing parameters strongly correlate with increased resistance in an animal model

Background: Effort of Breathing (EOB) calculations may be a reliable alternative to Work of Breathing (WOB) calculations in which Respiratory Inductance Plethysmography (RIP) replaces spirometry. We sought to compare EOB and WOB measurements in a nonhuman primate model of increasing extrathoracic inspiratory resistance simulating upper airway obstruction (UAO).Methods: RIP, spirometry, and esophageal manometry were measured in spontaneously breathing, intubated Rhesus monkeys utilizing 11 calibrated resistors randomly applied for 2-min. EOB was calculated breath-by-breath as Pressure Rate Product (PRP) and Pressure Time Product (PTP). WOB was calculated from the Pressure-Volume curve based on spirometry (WOBSPIR) or RIP flow (WOBRIP).Results: WOB, PRP and PTP showed similar linear increases when exposed to higher levels of resistive loads. When comparing WOBSPIR to WOBRIP, a similar strong correlation was seen for both signals as resistance increased and there were no statistically significant differences.Conclusion: EOB and WOB parameters utilizing esophageal manometry and RIP, independent of spirometry, showed a strong correlation as a function of increasing inspiratory resistance in nonhuman primates. This allows several potential monitoring possibilities for non-invasively ventilated patients or situations where spirometry is not available. Impact: EOB and WOB parameters showed a strong correlation as a function of increasing inspiratory resistance in nonhuman primates.There was a strong correlation between spirometry-based WOB versus RIP-based WOB.To date, it has remained untested as to whether EOB is a reliable alternative for WOB and if RIP can replace spirometry in these measurements.Our results enable additional potential monitoring possibilities for non-invasively ventilated patients or situations where spirometry is not available.Where spirometry is not available, there is no need to apply a facemask post extubation to a spontaneously breathing, non-intubated infant to make objective EOB measurements.</p

Effort and work-of-breathing parameters strongly correlate with increased resistance in an animal model

Background: Effort of Breathing (EOB) calculations may be a reliable alternative to Work of Breathing (WOB) calculations in which Respiratory Inductance Plethysmography (RIP) replaces spirometry. We sought to compare EOB and WOB measurements in a nonhuman primate model of increasing extrathoracic inspiratory resistance simulating upper airway obstruction (UAO).Methods: RIP, spirometry, and esophageal manometry were measured in spontaneously breathing, intubated Rhesus monkeys utilizing 11 calibrated resistors randomly applied for 2-min. EOB was calculated breath-by-breath as Pressure Rate Product (PRP) and Pressure Time Product (PTP). WOB was calculated from the Pressure-Volume curve based on spirometry (WOBSPIR) or RIP flow (WOBRIP).Results: WOB, PRP and PTP showed similar linear increases when exposed to higher levels of resistive loads. When comparing WOBSPIR to WOBRIP, a similar strong correlation was seen for both signals as resistance increased and there were no statistically significant differences.Conclusion: EOB and WOB parameters utilizing esophageal manometry and RIP, independent of spirometry, showed a strong correlation as a function of increasing inspiratory resistance in nonhuman primates. This allows several potential monitoring possibilities for non-invasively ventilated patients or situations where spirometry is not available. Impact: EOB and WOB parameters showed a strong correlation as a function of increasing inspiratory resistance in nonhuman primates.There was a strong correlation between spirometry-based WOB versus RIP-based WOB.To date, it has remained untested as to whether EOB is a reliable alternative for WOB and if RIP can replace spirometry in these measurements.Our results enable additional potential monitoring possibilities for non-invasively ventilated patients or situations where spirometry is not available.Where spirometry is not available, there is no need to apply a facemask post extubation to a spontaneously breathing, non-intubated infant to make objective EOB measurements.</p

Effort and work-of-breathing parameters strongly correlate with increased resistance in an animal model

Background: Effort of Breathing (EOB) calculations may be a reliable alternative to Work of Breathing (WOB) calculations in which Respiratory Inductance Plethysmography (RIP) replaces spirometry. We sought to compare EOB and WOB measurements in a nonhuman primate model of increasing extrathoracic inspiratory resistance simulating upper airway obstruction (UAO).Methods: RIP, spirometry, and esophageal manometry were measured in spontaneously breathing, intubated Rhesus monkeys utilizing 11 calibrated resistors randomly applied for 2-min. EOB was calculated breath-by-breath as Pressure Rate Product (PRP) and Pressure Time Product (PTP). WOB was calculated from the Pressure-Volume curve based on spirometry (WOBSPIR) or RIP flow (WOBRIP).Results: WOB, PRP and PTP showed similar linear increases when exposed to higher levels of resistive loads. When comparing WOBSPIR to WOBRIP, a similar strong correlation was seen for both signals as resistance increased and there were no statistically significant differences.Conclusion: EOB and WOB parameters utilizing esophageal manometry and RIP, independent of spirometry, showed a strong correlation as a function of increasing inspiratory resistance in nonhuman primates. This allows several potential monitoring possibilities for non-invasively ventilated patients or situations where spirometry is not available. Impact: EOB and WOB parameters showed a strong correlation as a function of increasing inspiratory resistance in nonhuman primates.There was a strong correlation between spirometry-based WOB versus RIP-based WOB.To date, it has remained untested as to whether EOB is a reliable alternative for WOB and if RIP can replace spirometry in these measurements.Our results enable additional potential monitoring possibilities for non-invasively ventilated patients or situations where spirometry is not available.Where spirometry is not available, there is no need to apply a facemask post extubation to a spontaneously breathing, non-intubated infant to make objective EOB measurements.</p

Developmental patterns in human blood–brain barrier and blood–cerebrospinal fluid barrier ABC drug transporter expression

When drugs exert their effects in the brain, linear extrapolation of doses from adults could be harmful for children as the blood–brain barrier (BBB) and blood–CSF barrier (BCSFB) function is still immature. More specifically, age-related variation in membrane transporters may impact brain disposition. As human data on brain transporter expression is scarce, age dependent [gestational age (GA), postnatal age (PNA), and postmenstrual age (PMA)] variation in immunohistochemical localization and staining intensity of the ABC transporters P-glycoprotein (Pgp), breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP), and multidrug resistance-associated proteins 1, 2, 4, and 5 (MRP1/2/4/5) was investigated. Post mortem brain cortical and ventricular tissue was derived from 23 fetuses (GA range 12.9–39 weeks), 17 neonates (GA range 24.6–41.3 weeks, PNA range 0.004–3.5 weeks), 8 children (PNA range 0.1–3 years), and 4 adults who died from a wide variety of underlying conditions. In brain cortical BBB, immunostaining increased with age for Pgp and BCRP, while in contrast, MRP1 and MRP2 staining intensity appeared higher in fetuses, neonates, and children, as compared to adults. BCSFB was positively stained for Pgp, MRP1, and MRP2 and appeared stable across age, while BCRP was not detected. MRP4 and MRP5 were not det

Regional Differences in the Sensitivity of MEG for Interictal Spikes in Epilepsy

MEG interictal spikes as recorded in epilepsy patients are a reflection of intracranial interictal activity. This study investigates the relationship between the estimated sources of MEG spikes and the location, distribution and size of interictal spikes in the invasive ECoG of a group of 38 epilepsy patients that are monitored for pre-surgical evaluation. An amplitude/surface area measure is defined to quantify and rank ECoG spikes. It is found that all MEG spikes are associated with an ECoG spike that is among the three highest ranked in a patient. Among the different brain regions considered, the fronto-orbital, inter-hemispheric, tempero-lateral and central regions stand out. In an accompanying simulation study it is shown that for hypothesized extended sources of larger sizes, as suggested by the data, source location, orientation and curvature can partly explain the observed sensitivity of MEG for interictal spikes