4.5 Article

Correlation between REM AHI and Quality-of-Life Scores in Children with Sleep-Disordered Breathing

期刊

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
卷 151, 期 4, 页码 687-691

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0194599814547504

关键词

obstructive sleep apnea; pediatrics; quality of life; polysomnogram

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Prior research has demonstrated poor correlation between the obstructive apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) on full-night polysomnogram (PSG) and quality-of-life (QOL) scores. We aim to examine the association between rapid eye movement (REM) AHI and QOL scores in children with sleep-disordered breathing (SDB). Study Design. Prospective trial. Setting. Two tertiary children's hospitals. Subjects and Methods. Children between 3 and 16 years of age with suspected SDB who were undergoing PSG were eligible. Children with craniofacial anomalies were excluded. Subjects' caregivers completed the Obstructive Sleep Apnea-18 (OSA-18), a validated QOL survey. Power analysis determined a group size of 34. Results. One hundred twenty-seven patients were enrolled. The mean (SD) age was 6.3 (3.3) years. Most subjects (52%) were black and 26% were obese. The mean (SD) obstructive AHI of the subject population was 5.4 (11.9), while the mean (SD) REM AHI was 13.1 (23.7). The mean total OSA-18 score was 65.2, indicating a moderate impact of SDB on QOL. Neither the obstructive AHI (P = .73) nor the REM AHI (P = .49) correlated with total OSA-18 scores. However, lower nadir oxygen saturation was associated with significantly poorer QOL (P = .02). The sleep disturbance OSA-18 subset score significantly correlated with both the obstructive AHI (r(2) = 0.22; P = .01) and the REM AHI (r(2) = 0.22; P = .01); the remaining 4 subset scores did not correlate with either factor. Conclusion. Neither obstructive AHI nor REM AHI correlates with total OSA-18 QOL scores. With the exception of nadir oxygen saturation, PSG parameters do not reflect the burden of SDB on QOL in children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据