Gillian R Diercks1,2, Carissa Wentland3,4, Donald Keamy1,2,5, Thomas Bernard Kinane5,6, Brian Skotko6,7, Vanessa de Guzman1, Ellen Grealish5, John Dobrowski1,2, Ryan Soose8, Christopher J Hartnick1,2. 1. Department of Otolaryngology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston. 2. Department of Otology and Laryngology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. University Hospitals, Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, Case Western University, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Pediatric Sleep Associates, Massachusetts General Hospital for Children, Boston. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Down Syndrome Program, Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 8. Department of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) affects up to 60% of children with Down syndrome (DS) and may persist in half of patients after adenotonsillectomy. Children with DS who have persistent OSA often do not tolerate treatment with positive pressure airway support devices or tracheotomy for their residual moderate to severe OSA. The hypoglossal nerve stimulator is an implantable device that delivers an electrical impulse to anterior branches of the hypoglossal nerve in response to respiratory variation, resulting in tongue base protrusion that alleviates upper airway obstruction in adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether hypoglossal nerve stimulation is safe and effective in children with DS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Case series of the first 6 adolescents with DS to undergo hypoglossal nerve stimulator implantation. Participants were 6 children and adolescents (12-18 years) with DS and severe OSA (apnea hypopnea index [AHI] > 10 events/h) despite prior adenotonsillectomy. INTERVENTION: Inspire hypoglossal nerve stimulator placement. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patients were monitored for adverse events. Adherence to therapy was measured by hours of use recorded by the device. Efficacy was evaluated by comparing AHI and OSA-18, a validated quality-of-life instrument, scores at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: In 6 patients (4 male, 2 female; aged 12-18 years), hypoglossal nerve stimulator therapy was well tolerated (mean use, 5.6-10.0 h/night) and effective, resulting in significant improvement in OSA. At 6- to 12-month follow-up, patients demonstrated a 56% to 85% reduction in AHI, with an overall AHI of less than 5 events/h in 4 children and less than 10 events/h in 2 children. Children also demonstrated a clinically significant improvement (mean [SD] overall change score, 1.5 [0.6]; range, 0.9-2.3) on the OSA-18, a validated quality-of-life instrument. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hypoglossal nerve stimulation was well tolerated and effective in the study population, representing a potential therapeutic option for patients with DS and refractory OSA after adenotonsillectomy who are unable to tolerate positive pressure airway devices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT2344108.
IMPORTANCE: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) affects up to 60% of children with Down syndrome (DS) and may persist in half of patients after adenotonsillectomy. Children with DS who have persistent OSA often do not tolerate treatment with positive pressure airway support devices or tracheotomy for their residual moderate to severe OSA. The hypoglossal nerve stimulator is an implantable device that delivers an electrical impulse to anterior branches of the hypoglossal nerve in response to respiratory variation, resulting in tongue base protrusion that alleviates upper airway obstruction in adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether hypoglossal nerve stimulation is safe and effective in children with DS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Case series of the first 6 adolescents with DS to undergo hypoglossal nerve stimulator implantation. Participants were 6 children and adolescents (12-18 years) with DS and severe OSA (apnea hypopnea index [AHI] > 10 events/h) despite prior adenotonsillectomy. INTERVENTION: Inspire hypoglossal nerve stimulator placement. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patients were monitored for adverse events. Adherence to therapy was measured by hours of use recorded by the device. Efficacy was evaluated by comparing AHI and OSA-18, a validated quality-of-life instrument, scores at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: In 6 patients (4 male, 2 female; aged 12-18 years), hypoglossal nerve stimulator therapy was well tolerated (mean use, 5.6-10.0 h/night) and effective, resulting in significant improvement in OSA. At 6- to 12-month follow-up, patients demonstrated a 56% to 85% reduction in AHI, with an overall AHI of less than 5 events/h in 4 children and less than 10 events/h in 2 children. Children also demonstrated a clinically significant improvement (mean [SD] overall change score, 1.5 [0.6]; range, 0.9-2.3) on the OSA-18, a validated quality-of-life instrument. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hypoglossal nerve stimulation was well tolerated and effective in the study population, representing a potential therapeutic option for patients with DS and refractory OSA after adenotonsillectomy who are unable to tolerate positive pressure airway devices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT2344108.
Authors: Patrick J Strollo; Ryan J Soose; Joachim T Maurer; Nico de Vries; Jason Cornelius; Oleg Froymovich; Ronald D Hanson; Tapan A Padhya; David L Steward; M Boyd Gillespie; B Tucker Woodson; Paul H Van de Heyning; Mark G Goetting; Oliver M Vanderveken; Neil Feldman; Lennart Knaack; Kingman P Strohl Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gillian R Diercks; Donald Keamy; Thomas Bernard Kinane; Brian Skotko; Allison Schwartz; Ellen Grealish; John Dobrowski; Ryan Soose; Christopher J Hartnick Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Ahmad R Sedaghat; Renee B Flax-Goldenberg; Bob W Gayler; George T Capone; Stacey L Ishman Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: A R Schwartz; M L Bennett; P L Smith; W De Backer; J Hedner; A Boudewyns; P Van de Heyning; H Ejnell; W Hochban; L Knaack; T Podszus; T Penzel; J H Peter; G S Goding; D J Erickson; R Testerman; F Ottenhoff; D W Eisele Journal: Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2001-10
Authors: B Tucker Woodson; Ryan J Soose; M Boyd Gillespie; Kingman P Strohl; Joachim T Maurer; Nico de Vries; David L Steward; Jonathan Z Baskin; M Safwan Badr; Ho-sheng Lin; Tapan A Padhya; Sam Mickelson; W McDowell Anderson; Olivier M Vanderveken; Patrick J Strollo Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Phoebe K Yu; Matthew Stenerson; Stacey L Ishman; Sally R Shott; Nikhila Raol; Ryan J Soose; Allison Tobey; Cristina Baldassari; Raj C Dedhia; Margaret B Pulsifer; Julie A Grieco; Leonard J Abbeduto; Thomas B Kinane; Donald G Keamy; Brian G Skotko; Christopher J Hartnick Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 8.961
Authors: Saif Mashaqi; Salma Imran Patel; Daniel Combs; Lauren Estep; Sonia Helmick; Joan Machamer; Sairam Parthasarathy Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Kellen C Gandy; Heidi A Castillo; Lara Ouellette; Jonathan Castillo; Philip J Lupo; Lisa M Jacola; Karen R Rabin; Kimberly P Raghubar; Maria M Gramatges Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 3.240