Ronald D Chervin1, Deborah L Ruzicka2, Timothy F Hoban3, Judith L Fetterolf2, Susan L Garetz4, Kenneth E Guire5, James E Dillon6, Barbara T Felt7, Elise K Hodges8, Bruno J Giordani8. 1. Sleep Disorders Center and Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: chervin@umich.edu. 2. Sleep Disorders Center and Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Sleep Disorders Center and Division of Pediatric Neurology, Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 4. Sleep Disorders Center and Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 5. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 6. Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 7. Division of Child Behavioral Health, Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 8. Neuropsychology Section, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Esophageal pressure monitoring during polysomnography in children offers a gold-standard, “preferred” assessment for work of breathing, but is not commonly used in part because prospective data on incremental clinical utility are scarce. We compared a standard pediatric apnea/hypopnea index to quantitative esophageal pressures as predictors of apnea-related neurobehavioral morbidity and treatment response. METHODS: Eighty-one children aged 7.8 ± 2.8 (SD) years, including 44 boys, had traditional laboratory-based pediatric polysomnography, esophageal pressure monitoring, multiple sleep latency tests, psychiatric evaluations, parental behavior rating scales, and cognitive testing, all just before clinically indicated adenotonsillectomy, and again 7.2 ± 0.8 months later. Esophageal pressures were used, along with nasal pressure monitoring and oronasal thermocouples, not only to identify respiratory events but also more quantitatively to determine the most negative esophageal pressure recorded and the percentage of sleep time spent with pressures lower than -10 cm H(2)O. RESULTS: Both sleep-disordered breathing and neurobehavioral measures improved after surgery. At baseline, one or both quantitative esophageal pressure measures predicted a disruptive behavior disorder (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition-defined attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, or oppositional defiant disorder) and more sleepiness and their future improvement after adenotonsillectomy (each P < .05). The pediatric apnea/hypopnea index did not predict these morbidities or treatment outcomes (each P > .10). The addition of respiratory effort-related arousals to the apnea/hypopnea index did not improve its predictive value. Neither the preoperative apnea/hypopnea index nor esophageal pressures predicted baseline hyperactive behavior, cognitive performance, or their improvement after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative esophageal pressure monitoring may add predictive value for some, if not all, neurobehavioral outcomes of sleep-disordered breathing.
BACKGROUND: Esophageal pressure monitoring during polysomnography in children offers a gold-standard, “preferred” assessment for work of breathing, but is not commonly used in part because prospective data on incremental clinical utility are scarce. We compared a standard pediatric apnea/hypopnea index to quantitative esophageal pressures as predictors of apnea-related neurobehavioral morbidity and treatment response. METHODS: Eighty-one children aged 7.8 ± 2.8 (SD) years, including 44 boys, had traditional laboratory-based pediatric polysomnography, esophageal pressure monitoring, multiple sleep latency tests, psychiatric evaluations, parental behavior rating scales, and cognitive testing, all just before clinically indicated adenotonsillectomy, and again 7.2 ± 0.8 months later. Esophageal pressures were used, along with nasal pressure monitoring and oronasal thermocouples, not only to identify respiratory events but also more quantitatively to determine the most negative esophageal pressure recorded and the percentage of sleep time spent with pressures lower than -10 cm H(2)O. RESULTS: Both sleep-disordered breathing and neurobehavioral measures improved after surgery. At baseline, one or both quantitative esophageal pressure measures predicted a disruptive behavior disorder (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition-defined attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, or oppositional defiant disorder) and more sleepiness and their future improvement after adenotonsillectomy (each P < .05). The pediatric apnea/hypopnea index did not predict these morbidities or treatment outcomes (each P > .10). The addition of respiratory effort-related arousals to the apnea/hypopnea index did not improve its predictive value. Neither the preoperative apnea/hypopnea index nor esophageal pressures predicted baseline hyperactive behavior, cognitive performance, or their improvement after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative esophageal pressure monitoring may add predictive value for some, if not all, neurobehavioral outcomes of sleep-disordered breathing.
Authors: D Shaffer; P Fisher; M K Dulcan; M Davies; J Piacentini; M E Schwab-Stone; B B Lahey; K Bourdon; P S Jensen; H R Bird; G Canino; D A Regier Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Ronald D Chervin; Deborah L Ruzicka; Judith L Wiebelhaus; Garnett L Hegeman; Deanna J Marriott; Carole L Marcus; Bruno J Giordani; Robert A Weatherly; James E Dillon Journal: Sleep Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Ronald D Chervin; Susan S Ellenberg; Xiaoling Hou; Carole L Marcus; Susan L Garetz; Eliot S Katz; Elise K Hodges; Ron B Mitchell; Dwight T Jones; Raanan Arens; Raouf Amin; Susan Redline; Carol L Rosen Journal: Chest Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 9.410
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: Shalini Paruthi; Paula Buchanan; Jia Weng; Ronald D Chervin; Ronald B Mitchell; Dawn Dore-Stites; Anjali Sadhwani; Eliot S Katz; John Bent; Carol L Rosen; Susan Redline; Carole L Marcus Journal: Sleep Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: H Gerry Taylor; Susan R Bowen; Dean W Beebe; Elise Hodges; Raouf Amin; Raanan Arens; Ronald D Chervin; Susan L Garetz; Eliot S Katz; Reneé H Moore; Knashawn H Morales; Hiren Muzumdar; Shalini Paruthi; Carol L Rosen; Anjali Sadhwani; Nina Hattiangadi Thomas; Janice Ware; Carole L Marcus; Susan S Ellenberg; Susan Redline; Bruno Giordani Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Seockhoon Chung; Elise K Hodges; Deborah L Ruzicka; Timothy F Hoban; Susan L Garetz; Kenneth E Guire; Barbara T Felt; James E Dillon; Ronald D Chervin; Bruno Giordani Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 1.675
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
Authors: David R Busch; Jennifer M Lynch; Madeline E Winters; Ann L McCarthy; John J Newland; Tiffany Ko; Mary Anne Cornaglia; Jerilynn Radcliffe; Joseph M McDonough; John Samuel; Edward Matthews; Rui Xiao; Arjun G Yodh; Carole L Marcus; Daniel J Licht; Ignacio E Tapia Journal: Sleep Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Sarah N Biggs; Lisa M Walter; Angela R Jackman; Lauren C Nisbet; Aidan J Weichard; Samantha L Hollis; Margot J Davey; Vicki Anderson; Gillian M Nixon; Rosemary S C Horne Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 3.240