4.4 Article

Age and weight considerations for the use of continuous positive airway pressure therapy in pediatric populations: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine position statement

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SLEEP MEDICINE
Volume 18, Issue 8, Pages 2041-2043

Publisher

AMER ACAD SLEEP MEDICINE
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.10098

Keywords

obstructive sleep apnea; CPAP; pediatrics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This position statement provides guidance on age and weight considerations for using continuous positive airway pressure therapy in pediatric populations. According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, continuous positive airway pressure can be safe and effective for treating obstructive sleep apnea in pediatric patients, even in younger and lighter children, when managed by clinicians with expertise in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea.
This position statement provides guidance for age and weight considerations for using continuous positive airway pressure therapy in pediatric populations. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine commissioned a task force of experts in pediatric sleep medicine to review the medical literature and develop a position statement based on a thorough review of these studies and their clinical expertise. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine Board of Directors approved the final position statement. It is the position of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine that continuous positive airway pressure can be safe and effective for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea for pediatric patients, even in children of younger ages and lower weights, when managed by a clinician with expertise in evaluating and treating pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. The clinician must make the ultimate judgment regarding any specific care in light of the individual circumstances presented by the patient, accessible treatment options, patient/parental preference, and resources.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available