Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common but underdiagnosed sleep disorder, which is associated with systemic consequences such as hypertension, stroke, metabolic syndrome, and ischemic heart disease. Nocturnal laboratory-based polysomnography (PSG) is the gold standard test for diagnosis of OSA. PSG consists of a simultaneous recording of multiple physiologic parameters related to sleep and wakefulness including electroencephalography (EEG), electrooculography (EOG), surface electromyography (EMG), airflow measurement using thermistor and nasal pressure transducer, pulse oximetry and respiratory effort (thoracic and abdominal). Multiple alternative and simpler methods that record respiratory parameters alone for diagnosing OSA have been developed in the past two decades. These devices are called portable monitors (PMs) and enable performing sleep studies at a lower cost with shorter waiting times. It has been observed and reported that comprehensive sleep evaluation coupled with the use of PMs can fulfill the unmet need for diagnostic testing in various out-of-hospital settings in patients with suspected OSA. This article reviews the available medical literature on PMs in order to justify the utility of PMs in the diagnosis of OSA, especially in resource-poor, high-disease burden settings. The published practice parameters for the use of these devices have also been reviewed with respect to their relevance in the Indian setting.

Background and Objectives: The triaging of COVID-19 patients is of paramount importance to plan further management. There are several clinical and laboratory parameters that help in categorizing the disease severity, triaging, and prognostication. Little is known about the prognostic significance of eosinopenia in predicting the severity of COVID-19 from large hospital data, especially from low- and middle-income countries. The objective of this study is to evaluate the level of eosinopenia as an early prognostic marker for assessing the outcomes in COVID-19 patients and to assess the superiority of eosinopenia as a prognostic marker for assessing the outcomes in COVID-19 patients compared to lymphopenia and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR). Methods: The study was carried out in a tertiary care hospital. A retrospective longitudinal approach was adopted wherein the hospital records of COVID-19 patients were analyzed. In our study, two separate groups of patients were included for analysis to describe the association between initial eosinophil counts of the patients and the clinical outcomes. In the first group, the disease severity in terms of clinical and radiological parameters was compared in patients of COVID-19 presenting with and without the presence of initial eosinopenia. Commonly used markers for triage, namely lymphopenia and NLR, were compared with the presence of initial eosinopenia among the patients who progressed to moderate and severe disease. In the second group, an analysis of eosinopenia was made among the patients who succumbed to the illness. Results: It was seen that 29.6% of patients with eosinopenia had moderate and severe disease compared to those without eosinopenia where only 10.8% had moderate disease, none had severe disease. It was seen that 19.7% of patients with eosinopenia but no lymphopenia had more severe disease compared to patients with lymphopenia but no eosinopenia where 10.8% of the patients had moderate disease, none had severe disease. In patients younger than 60 years who died of COVID-19, it was found that initial eosinopenia was found in 86%, whereas a high NLR >17 was seen in only 25.6% of patients who died, thus implying that is eosinopenia is an important marker of disease severity in COVID-19. Conclusions: Eosinopenia is an important parameter in the evaluation of COVID-19 and the presence of it should alert the clinicians regarding the further progression of the disease. It is not only an important marker but also an early marker for severe disease.

Background: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) refers to a group of conditions that are associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Ankle–brachial index (ABI) is a noninvasive, inexpensive way of assessing the blood flow in the lower limbs and may be useful as an indirect marker of subclinical atherosclerosis. Aim and Objective: To study and compare ABI values between patients with MetS and patients without MetS. Materials and Methods: A total of 98 patients attending the outpatient department between October 2018 and September 2020 were included in the study. They were categorized as MetS and non-MetS as per the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. They were tested for ABI with a handheld Doppler. The ABI values were compared between the two groups. Results: Among 98 patients, 49 were cases and 49 as controls. ABI values were found to be 1.09 ± 0.12 among the cases and 1.22 ± 0.05 among the controls and were found to be statistically significant (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The patients with MetS had lower ABI compared with the patients who did not have MetS. ABI can be used as an indirect marker of atherosclerosis and can be used in routine clinical assessment for identifying patients at a higher cardiovascular risk.