OBJECTIVES: To assess tolerance of esophageal pressure monitoring (EPM) among 5- to 13-year-old children during research polysomnography at study entry and again 1 year later. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: University-based sleep laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Children scheduled for adenotonsillectomy or hernia repair. INTERVENTIONS: None; all operations were performed for clinical indications only. RESULTS: Forty-two of 336 families approached about the study declined to participate mainly to avoid EPM. The EPM was usually the main concern for the 47 adenotonsillectomy and 7 hernia-repair patients and families who did participate. Among 54 enrolled subjects, 51 allowed attempts at insertion of the esophageal catheter, and insertion was successful in all cases; 38 tolerated EPM for at least 2 hours; 33 maintained EPM for the entire night; and 36 had repeat EPM 1 year later for at least 2 hours. Reasons for EPM failure included crying at insertion, vomiting, pain, and inadvertent catheter removal during sleep. The children who tolerated EPM for at least 2 hours did not differ from other subjects based on age, sex, presence of a disruptive behavior disorder, anxiety, tonsil size, history of tonsillitis, or body mass index (all P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The EPM was well tolerated in most school-aged volunteers, but many families did not volunteer, and some children were not able to endure EPM for at least 2 hours. Although better success might be achieved in clinical settings if EPM is medically indicated and not part of voluntary research, EPM is still likely to create significant concern, for children and parents, that must be weighed against anticipated benefits.
OBJECTIVES: To assess tolerance of esophageal pressure monitoring (EPM) among 5- to 13-year-old children during research polysomnography at study entry and again 1 year later. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: University-based sleep laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Children scheduled for adenotonsillectomy or hernia repair. INTERVENTIONS: None; all operations were performed for clinical indications only. RESULTS: Forty-two of 336 families approached about the study declined to participate mainly to avoid EPM. The EPM was usually the main concern for the 47 adenotonsillectomy and 7 hernia-repair patients and families who did participate. Among 54 enrolled subjects, 51 allowed attempts at insertion of the esophageal catheter, and insertion was successful in all cases; 38 tolerated EPM for at least 2 hours; 33 maintained EPM for the entire night; and 36 had repeat EPM 1 year later for at least 2 hours. Reasons for EPM failure included crying at insertion, vomiting, pain, and inadvertent catheter removal during sleep. The children who tolerated EPM for at least 2 hours did not differ from other subjects based on age, sex, presence of a disruptive behavior disorder, anxiety, tonsil size, history of tonsillitis, or body mass index (all P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The EPM was well tolerated in most school-aged volunteers, but many families did not volunteer, and some children were not able to endure EPM for at least 2 hours. Although better success might be achieved in clinical settings if EPM is medically indicated and not part of voluntary research, EPM is still likely to create significant concern, for children and parents, that must be weighed against anticipated benefits.
Authors: Ronald D Chervin; Deborah L Ruzicka; Timothy F Hoban; Judith L Fetterolf; Susan L Garetz; Kenneth E Guire; James E Dillon; Barbara T Felt; Elise K Hodges; Bruno J Giordani Journal: Chest Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Preetam Bandla; Jingtao Huang; Laurie Karamessinis; Andrea Kelly; Michelle Pepe; John Samuel; Lee Brooks; Thornton A Mason; Paul R Gallagher; Carole L Marcus Journal: Sleep Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Ronald D Chervin; Susan L Garetz; Deborah L Ruzicka; Elise K Hodges; Bruno J Giordani; James E Dillon; Barbara T Felt; Timothy F Hoban; Kenneth E Guire; Louise M O'Brien; Joseph W Burns Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2014-08-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Merrill S Wise; Cynthia D Nichols; Madeleine M Grigg-Damberger; Carole L Marcus; Manisha B Witmans; Valerie G Kirk; Lynn A D'Andrea; Timothy F Hoban Journal: Sleep Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Ronald D Chervin; Deborah L Ruzicka; Bruno J Giordani; Robert A Weatherly; James E Dillon; Elise K Hodges; Carole L Marcus; Kenneth E Guire Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jingtao Huang; Laurie R Karamessinis; Michelle E Pepe; Stephen M Glinka; John M Samuel; Paul R Gallagher; Carole L Marcus Journal: Sleep Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Ronald D Chervin; Seockhoon Chung; Louise M O'Brien; Timothy F Hoban; Susan L Garetz; Deborah L Ruzicka; Kenneth E Guire; Elise K Hodges; Barbara T Felt; Bruno J Giordani; James E Dillon Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2014-06-06 Impact factor: 3.492