Eric Staykov, Dwayne L Mann, Samu Kainulainen, Brett Duce, Timo Leppanen, Juha Toyras, Scott A Sands, Philip I Terrill
{"title":"鼻压推导气流限制和通气测量可抵御信号质量下降。","authors":"Eric Staykov, Dwayne L Mann, Samu Kainulainen, Brett Duce, Timo Leppanen, Juha Toyras, Scott A Sands, Philip I Terrill","doi":"10.1109/EMBC40787.2023.10340215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Obstructive sleep apnea is a disorder characterized by partial or complete airway obstructions during sleep. Our previously published algorithms use the minimally invasive nasal pressure signal routinely collected during diagnostic polysomnography (PSG) to segment breaths and estimate airflow limitation (using flow:drive) and minute ventilation for each breath. The first aim of this study was to investigate the effect of airflow signal quality on these algorithms, which can be influenced by oronasal breathing and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). It was hypothesized that these algorithms would make inaccurate estimates when the expiratory portion of breaths is attenuated to simulate oronasal breathing, and pink noise is added to the airflow signal to reduce SNR. At maximum SNR and 0% expiratory amplitude, the average error was 2.7% for flow:drive, -0.5% eupnea for ventilation, and 19.7 milliseconds for breath duration (n = 257,131 breaths). At 20 dB and 0% expiratory amplitude, the average error was -15.1% for flow:drive, 0.1% eupnea for ventilation, and 28.4 milliseconds for breath duration (n = 247,160 breaths). Unexpectedly, simulated oronasal breathing had a negligible effect on flow:drive, ventilation, and breath segmentation algorithms across all SNRs. Airflow SNR ≥ 20 dB had a negligible effect on ventilation and breath segmentation, whereas airflow SNR ≥ 30 dB had a negligible effect on flow:drive. The second aim of this study was to explore the possibility of correcting these algorithms to compensate for airflow signal asymmetry and low SNR. An offset based on estimated SNR applied to individual breath flow:drive estimates reduced the average error to ≤ 1.3% across all SNRs at patient and breath levels, thereby facilitating for flow:drive to be more accurately estimated from PSGs with low airflow SNR.Clinical Relevance- This study demonstrates that our airflow limitation, ventilation, and breath segmentation algorithms are robust to reduced airflow signal quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":72237,"journal":{"name":"Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference","volume":"2023 ","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nasal Pressure Derived Airflow Limitation and Ventilation Measurements are Resilient to Reduced Signal Quality.\",\"authors\":\"Eric Staykov, Dwayne L Mann, Samu Kainulainen, Brett Duce, Timo Leppanen, Juha Toyras, Scott A Sands, Philip I Terrill\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/EMBC40787.2023.10340215\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Obstructive sleep apnea is a disorder characterized by partial or complete airway obstructions during sleep. Our previously published algorithms use the minimally invasive nasal pressure signal routinely collected during diagnostic polysomnography (PSG) to segment breaths and estimate airflow limitation (using flow:drive) and minute ventilation for each breath. The first aim of this study was to investigate the effect of airflow signal quality on these algorithms, which can be influenced by oronasal breathing and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). It was hypothesized that these algorithms would make inaccurate estimates when the expiratory portion of breaths is attenuated to simulate oronasal breathing, and pink noise is added to the airflow signal to reduce SNR. At maximum SNR and 0% expiratory amplitude, the average error was 2.7% for flow:drive, -0.5% eupnea for ventilation, and 19.7 milliseconds for breath duration (n = 257,131 breaths). At 20 dB and 0% expiratory amplitude, the average error was -15.1% for flow:drive, 0.1% eupnea for ventilation, and 28.4 milliseconds for breath duration (n = 247,160 breaths). Unexpectedly, simulated oronasal breathing had a negligible effect on flow:drive, ventilation, and breath segmentation algorithms across all SNRs. Airflow SNR ≥ 20 dB had a negligible effect on ventilation and breath segmentation, whereas airflow SNR ≥ 30 dB had a negligible effect on flow:drive. The second aim of this study was to explore the possibility of correcting these algorithms to compensate for airflow signal asymmetry and low SNR. An offset based on estimated SNR applied to individual breath flow:drive estimates reduced the average error to ≤ 1.3% across all SNRs at patient and breath levels, thereby facilitating for flow:drive to be more accurately estimated from PSGs with low airflow SNR.Clinical Relevance- This study demonstrates that our airflow limitation, ventilation, and breath segmentation algorithms are robust to reduced airflow signal quality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference\",\"volume\":\"2023 \",\"pages\":\"1-4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC40787.2023.10340215\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC40787.2023.10340215","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Nasal Pressure Derived Airflow Limitation and Ventilation Measurements are Resilient to Reduced Signal Quality.
Obstructive sleep apnea is a disorder characterized by partial or complete airway obstructions during sleep. Our previously published algorithms use the minimally invasive nasal pressure signal routinely collected during diagnostic polysomnography (PSG) to segment breaths and estimate airflow limitation (using flow:drive) and minute ventilation for each breath. The first aim of this study was to investigate the effect of airflow signal quality on these algorithms, which can be influenced by oronasal breathing and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). It was hypothesized that these algorithms would make inaccurate estimates when the expiratory portion of breaths is attenuated to simulate oronasal breathing, and pink noise is added to the airflow signal to reduce SNR. At maximum SNR and 0% expiratory amplitude, the average error was 2.7% for flow:drive, -0.5% eupnea for ventilation, and 19.7 milliseconds for breath duration (n = 257,131 breaths). At 20 dB and 0% expiratory amplitude, the average error was -15.1% for flow:drive, 0.1% eupnea for ventilation, and 28.4 milliseconds for breath duration (n = 247,160 breaths). Unexpectedly, simulated oronasal breathing had a negligible effect on flow:drive, ventilation, and breath segmentation algorithms across all SNRs. Airflow SNR ≥ 20 dB had a negligible effect on ventilation and breath segmentation, whereas airflow SNR ≥ 30 dB had a negligible effect on flow:drive. The second aim of this study was to explore the possibility of correcting these algorithms to compensate for airflow signal asymmetry and low SNR. An offset based on estimated SNR applied to individual breath flow:drive estimates reduced the average error to ≤ 1.3% across all SNRs at patient and breath levels, thereby facilitating for flow:drive to be more accurately estimated from PSGs with low airflow SNR.Clinical Relevance- This study demonstrates that our airflow limitation, ventilation, and breath segmentation algorithms are robust to reduced airflow signal quality.