4.7 Article

Growth velocity predicts recurrence of sleep-disordered breathing 1 year after adenotonsillectomy

Journal

Publisher

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200710-1610OC

Keywords

growth velocity; adenotonsillectomy; sleep-disordered breathing

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR 08084-08] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01-HL70907-02A1] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale: Adenotonsillectomy, the first line of treatment of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB), is the most commonly performed pediatric surgery. Predictors of the recurrence of SDB after adenotonsillectomy and its impact on cardiovascular risk factors have not been identified. Objectives: Demonstrate that gain velocity in body mass index (BMI) defined as unit increase in BMI/yearconfers an independent risk for the recurrence of SDB 1 year after adenotonsillectomy. Methods: Children with SDB and hypertrophy of the tonsils and a comparison group of healthy children were followed prospectively for 1 year. Measurements and Main Results: Serial polysomnographies, BMI, and blood pressure were obtained before adenotonsillectomy and 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Gain velocity in BMI, BMI and being African American (odds ratios, 4-6/unit change/yr; 1.4/unit and 15, respectively) provided equal amounts of predictive power to the risk of recurrence of SDB. In the group that experienced recurrence, systolic blood pressure at 1 year was higher than at baseline and higher than in children who did not experience recurrence. Conclusions: Three clinical parameters confer independent increased risk for high recurrence of SDB after adenotonsillectomy: gain velocity in BMI, obesity, and being African American. A long-term follow-up of children with SDB and monitoring of gain velocity in BMI are essential to identifying children at risk for recurrence of SDB and in turn at risk for hypertension.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available