IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v25y2016i9-10p1238-1252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is there a difference between the STOP‐BANG and the Berlin Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Syndrome questionnaires for determining respiratory complications during the perioperative period?

Author

Listed:
  • Pervin Gokay
  • Sevinc Tastan
  • Mehmet Emin Orhan

Abstract

Aims and Objectives This study aimed to compare the efficiency of the STOP‐BANG and Berlin Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Syndrome questionnaires for evaluating potential respiratory complications during the perioperative period. Background Questionnaires that are used to determine obstructive sleep apnoea risk are not widely used for surgical patients. Among the questionnaires that are commonly used for obstructive sleep apnoea screening, it remains unclear whether the STOP‐BANG or Berlin Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Syndrome questionnaire is more effective in terms of ease of use, usage period and diagnosis of surgical patients with obstructive sleep apnoea risk. Design This study was designed as a descriptive and prospective study. Methods The study included 126 patients over 18 years of age who were American Society of Anesthesiologists classification class I–II and underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. To determine the potential obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome risk, the STOP‐BANG and Berlin questionnaires were administered. Respiratory complications were then observed during the perioperative period. Results During intubation and extubation, we observed statistically significant differences in difficult intubation, difficult facemask ventilation and desaturation frequency between the high‐ and low‐risk groups for obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome, as determined by the STOP‐BANG questionnaire. During extubation, statistically significant differences in coughing, breath‐holding and desaturation frequency were observed between the high‐risk and low‐risk groups, according to the Berlin questionnaire. In the post‐anaesthesia care unit, both questionnaires found statistically significant differences between the low‐ and high‐risk groups. Conclusion Obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome screening questionnaires administered during the preoperative period are useful for predicting perioperative respiratory complications. It may be most useful to administer the STOP‐BANG questionnaire as the initial evaluation. Relevance to clinical practice Questionnaires may be used to determine the risk of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome, which could impact the anaesthetisation of surgical patients. Questionnaires for determining the risk of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome should be used regularly for surgical patients, and these questionnaires should be used to improve clinical protocols for anaesthesia and postanaesthesia care.

Suggested Citation

  • Pervin Gokay & Sevinc Tastan & Mehmet Emin Orhan, 2016. "Is there a difference between the STOP‐BANG and the Berlin Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Syndrome questionnaires for determining respiratory complications during the perioperative period?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(9-10), pages 1238-1252, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:9-10:p:1238-1252
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13133
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13133
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13133?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mahesh Nagappa & David T Wong & Crispiana Cozowicz & Satya Krishna Ramachandran & Stavros G Memtsoudis & Frances Chung, 2018. "Is obstructive sleep apnea associated with difficult airway? Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective cohort studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-15, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:9-10:p:1238-1252. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.