CORE
🇺🇦
make metadata, not war
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Community governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Use of the Clinical Global Impression scale in sleep apnea patients – Results from the ESADA database
Authors
M. Dieltjens Verbraecken, J.A. Hedner, J. Vanderveken, O.M. Steiropoulos, P. Kvamme, J.A. Saaresranta, T. Tkacova, R. Marrone, O. Dogas, Z. Schiza, S. Grote, L. Steiropoulos, P. Verbraecken, J. Petiet, E. Trakada, G. Montserrat, J.M. Fietze, I. Penzel, T. Ludka, O. Rodenstein, D. Masa, J.F. Bouloukaki, I. Schiza, S. Kent, B. McNicholas, W.T. Ryan, S. Riha, R.L. Kvamme, J.A. Schulz, R. Grote, L. Hedner, J. Zou, D. Pépin, J.L. Levy, P. Bailly, S. Lavie, L. Lavie, P. Hein, H. Basoglu, O.K. Tasbakan, M.S. Varoneckas, G. Joppa, P. Tkacova, R. Staats, R. Barbé, F. Lombardi, C. Parati, G. Drummond, M. van Zeller, M. Bonsignore, M.R. Marrone, O. Escourrou, P. Roisman, G. Pretl, M. Vitols, A. Dogas, Z. Galic, T. Pataka, A. Anttalainen, U. Saaresranta, T. Sliwinski, P. Plywaczewski, R. Bielicki, P. Zielinski, J. ESADA collaborators
Publication date
1 January 2019
Publisher
Abstract
Objective/Background: The Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) reflects the clinician's assessment of the disease impact on patient's global functioning. We assessed predictors of CGI scale rating in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Patients/Methods: Consecutive patients with suspected OSA (n = 7581) were identified in the European Sleep Apnea Database (ESADA). Anthropometrics, comorbidities, apnea severity obtained by polygraphy or polysomnography, and daytime sleepiness [Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS)] were assessed. The CGI 7-point scale was completed at the end of the diagnostic process (CGI-severity, ie, CGI-S) and, in a subpopulation, at treatment follow-up (CGI-Improvement). Results: CGI-S was rated mild to moderate in 44% of patients. CGI rating at any given apnea intensity was worse in women than in men (p < 0.01). Patients undergoing polygraphy (n = 5075) were more frequently rated as severely ill compared to those studied with polysomnography (19.0% vs 13.0%, p < 0.001). In patients aged ≤65 years, CGI scoring was generally better than in the elderly despite a similar degree of OSA (eg, ‘normal, not ill’ 24.2% vs 15.3%, p < 0.01, respectively). Independent predictors of CGI rating included age, BMI, AHI, ESS, cardio-metabolic comorbidities, and diagnosis based on polygraphy. CGI-improvement rating (Beta = −0.406, p < 0.01) was superior to sleep apnea severity or ESS-score (Beta = 0.052 and −0.021, p = 0.154 and 0.538 respectively) at baseline for prediction of good CPAP compliance at follow-up. Conclusions: CGI rating is confounded by gender, age class and the type of sleep diagnostic method. As OSA phenotypes differ, CGI may contribute as a clinical tool to reflect the significance of clinical disease. © 2018 Elsevier B.V
Similar works
Full text
Available Versions
Pergamos : Unified Institutional Repository / Digital Library Platform of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:lib.uoa.gr:uoadl:3105911
Last time updated on 10/02/2023