shortening of the aryepiglottic folds. Three of themneeded supraglottoplasty since they progressed with pec-tus excavatum, and with weight and height deficit. Whencomparing the three groups in relation to the polysom-nographic findings, the group with laryngomalacia wassimilar to the group of control infants and different fromthe infant apnea group regarding central apnea index(p = 0.001) and obstructive apnea index (p = 0.008).The laryngomalacia group was similar to the group withinfant apnea and different from control subjects con-cerning desaturation and bradycardia events(p = 0.012) and SaO2 nadir (p = 0.001).Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that polysomnogra-phy was not relevant as a tool to evaluate infants withlaryngomalacia. Based on our findings it was not possibleto speculate that central nervous system immaturity is afactor involved in the ethiopathogeny of laryngomalacia.

doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2006.07.169

P361 Neurocognitive testing in children with and without

OSA

Yu-Shu Huang 1,*, Ning-Hung Chen 2, Christian

Guilleminault 3

1 Child Psychiatry,Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Tai-

pei, Taiwan2 Pulmonary Medicine,Chang Gung Memorial Hospital,

Taipei, Taiwan3 Stanford University Sleep Disorders Clinic, Stanford,

CA, USA

Introduction: We question if Test of Attention Visual(TOVA) testing would show differences when comparingchildren with ADHD presentation with and withoutpresence of OSA at polysomnography.Methods: Two hundred and three children (mean age 8.2years) 30 controls, 140 ADHD patients (DMS-IV criteria)and 33 patients with OSA (AHI > 1 event/h) had sleepevaluation and polysomnography. Based on results,ADHD were subdivided in ADHD with (n = 81) andwithout OSA (n = 59). All children underwent WISC-III intelligence scale for children and TOVA-V, with mea-surement of Omissions, (level of inattention). Commis-sions, (ability to control impulse), Response Time,Response Time Variability, and. D’ (response sensitivity)Analysis. ANOVA, t-test and v2 test for demographic andcomorbidity disease between groups, ANOVA for TOVAdomain, with post hoc analysis with Bonferroni adjust-ment for pair-wise analysis.Results: There were no significant differences in age andgender between groups. Normal controls showed a sig-nificant difference on omission, commission, responsetime, response time variability, D 0 and ADHD scoreof TOVA from other three groups. When differences

were detected, two groups were taken to make a com-parison used post hoc test. There were significant differ-ences on response time variability and ADHD scorebetween pure OSA and ADHD+OSA groups. Anotherfinding is the comparison after the results showed thatthere was no significant difference between ADHD with-out OSA (AHI < 1) and with OSA groups. But if thetwo factors of the age and severity of OSA were addedto analyze, the result showed very significances onADHD score between older and younger groups in themoderate and severe OSA children.Conclusion: All patients had abnormal response-timevariability and ADHD score. But younger ADHD chil-dren with OSA had further abnormal responses. OSAmay lead to some impairment but those with ADHDhad worse reaction sensitivity and poor ADHD scorethan those without ADHD.

doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2006.07.170

P363 The pediatric daytime sleepiness scale in elementary

school children

G.M. Nixon *, M. Wawruszak, N. Verginis, M.J. Davey

Melbourne Children’s Sleep Unit, Monash Medical Cen-

tre and Ritchie Centre for Baby Health Research,

Monash Institute of Medical Research, Monash Univer-

sity, Melbourne, Australia

Objectives: Minimal literature exists about the measure-ment of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in children.The Pediatric Daytime Sleepiness Scale (PDSS) wasdeveloped in 11–15-year-old students in Ohio. We aimedto evaluate the PDSS in elementary school children pre-senting to a pediatric sleep laboratory.Materials and methods: Between January and December2005, parents of consecutive children aged 5–12.9 yearsattending Melbourne Children’s Sleep Unit for standardpolysomnography (PSG) were asked to complete aPDSS questionnaire and Sleep Disturbance Scale forChildren (SDSC).Results: Two hundred and ninty-five children aged 5–12.9years attended the laboratory in the study period. Twohundred and seventeen families consented, and completePDSS questionnaire data was available for 205 children(124 males, mean age 8.3 years). The PDSS score washighly correlated with the EDS sub-scale of the SDSC(r2 = 0.8, p < 0.001). The PDSS score was significantlyhigher in 31 children aged 11–12.9 years compared toyounger children (median 16 vs. 12, p = 0.04). Ten chil-dren aged 11–12.9 years who reported usual sleep dura-tion less than 8 hours had a higher mean PDSScompared to the rest of their age group (19.3 vs. 14.5,p = 0.04). This effect of sleep restriction was not apparentin younger children. 180 children had benign snoring (BS)

Abstracts / Sleep Medicine 7 (2006) S1–S127 S71