SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

No Difference in Sleep and RBD between Different Types of Patients with Multiple System Atrophy: A Pilot Video-Polysomnographical Study.

Sleep Disord · 2013-03-28

DOI: 10.1155/2013/258390PMID: 23766915

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Background. Patients with multiple system atrophy (MSA), similarly to patients with alpha-synucleinopathies, can present with different sleep problems. We sought to analyze sleep problems in the two subtypes of the disease MSA cerebellar type (MSA-C) and MSA parkinsonian type (MSA-P), paying special attention to REM sleep disturbances and periodic limb movements (PLMs). Methods. In the study we included 11 MSA-C and 27 MSA-P patients who underwent one night polysomnography. For the analysis, there were 37 valid polysomnographic studies. Results. Sleep efficiency was decreased in both groups (MSA-C, 64.27% ± 12.04%; MSA-P, 60.64% ± 6.01%). The PLM indices using standard measures, in sleep (PLMS) and while awake (PLMW), were high in both groups (MSA-C patients: PLMS index 72 ± 65, PLMW index 38 ± 33; MSA-P patients: PLMS index 66 ± 63, PLMW index 48 ± 37). Almost one-third of the MSA patients of both groups presented features of RLS on video-polysomnography. RBD was described in 8/11 (73%) patients with MSA-C and 19/25 (76%) patients with MSA-P (P = 0.849). Conclusion. Our results showed very similar polysomnographic results for both MSA-P and MSA-C patients as a probable indicator for the similar pathologic mechanism of the disease and especially of its sleep problems.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.