TL;DR: Elderly patients with clinical signs suggestive of dysphagia and/or who have CAP should be referred for a swallow evaluation and consideration for treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor.
TL;DR: It is believed that a reliable, timely, and cost-effective instrumental swallow evaluation should be available for the majority of patients following acute stroke.
Abstract: Aspiration is an important variable related to increased morbidity, mortality, and cost of care for acute stroke patients. This prospective systematic replication study compared a clinical swallowing examination consisting of six clinical identifiers of aspiration risk, i.e., dysphonia, dysarthria, abnormal gag reflex, abnormal volitional cough, cough after swallow, and voice change after swallow, with an instrumental fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) to determine reliability in identifying aspiration risk following acute stroke. A referred consecutive sample of 49 first-time stroke patients was evaluated within 24 hours poststroke, first with the clinical examination followed immediately by FEES. The endoscopist was blinded to results of clinical testing. The clinical examination correctly identified 19 subjects with aspiration risk, when compared with the criterion standard FEES, but incorrectly identified 3 patients as having no aspiration risk when they did. The clinical examination incorrectly identified 19 subjects with aspiration risk but determined correctly no aspiration risk in 8 patients who did not exhibit aspiration risk on FEES. Clinical examination sensitivity = 86%; specificity = 30%; false negative rate = 14%; false positive rate = 70%; positive predictive value = 50%; and negative predictive value = 73%. It was concluded that the clinical examination, when compared with FEES, underestimated aspiration risk in patients with aspiration risk and overestimated aspiration risk in patients who did not exhibit aspiration risk. Careful consideration of the limitations of clinical testing leads us to believe that a reliable, timely, and cost-effective instrumental swallow evaluation should be available for the majority of patients following acute stroke.
TL;DR: The study underlines the need for exact definitions of the parameters assessed by videofluoroscopy, in order to raise interobserver reliability, and concludes that only aspiration is evaluated with high reliability by video fluoroscopic evaluation, whereas the reliability of all other parameters of oropharyngeal swallow is poor.
Abstract: The past two decades have brought an enormous widening of interest in and knowledge about swallowing disorders. The most frequently used technique for swallow evaluation is X-ray videofluoroscopy. Most interventions are based on this examination. Only a few studies assessing interobserver reliability of videofluoroscopy have been published. The aim of our study was to assess the interobserver reliability of videofluoroscopy for swallow evaluation. Fifty-one consecutive dysphagic patients referred for videofluoroscopy were entered into the study regardless of their underlying disorder. The first swallow (5 ml of a semisolid radio-opague contrast media) of each patient was assessed in the lateral projection by 9 independent, experienced observers from different international swallow centers. All studies were evaluated according to a standardized protocol sheet and the interobserver reliability was calculated. The interobserver reliabilities assessed as kappa coefficient for parameters of the oral and pharyngeal phase, for the temporal occurrence of penetration/aspiration, and for the location of bolus residue ranged from 0.01 to 0.56. High reliability with an intraclass coefficient of 0.80 was achieved only with the well defined penetration/aspiration score. Our study underlines the need for exact definitions of the parameters assessed by videofluoroscopy, in order to raise interobserver reliability. To date, only aspiration is evaluated with high reliability by videofluoroscopy, whereas the reliability of all other parameters of oropharyngeal swallow is poor.
TL;DR: Trauma patients requiring mechanical ventilation for ≥2 days are at increased risk for dysphagia and should undergo routine swallow evaluations after extubation, and patients with postextubation dysphAGia who will require clinical swallow evaluation are identified.
Abstract: Background There is a significant incidence of unrecognized postextubation dysphagia in trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence, ascertain the risk factors, and identify patients with postextubation dysphagia who will require clinical swallow evaluation. Methods A prospective observational study was performed on 270 trauma patients. Bedside clinical swallow evaluation was done within 24 hours of extubation. Logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for confounding variables. Results The incidence of oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) in our study was 42%. Ventilator days was the strongest independent risk factor for OD (3.6 vs 8.0, P Conclusions Trauma patients requiring mechanical ventilation for ≥2 days are at increased risk for dysphagia and should undergo routine swallow evaluations after extubation.
TL;DR: It is important to consider age, number of days posttracheotomy, functional reserve, and clinical judgment of recovery rate before performing a swallow evaluation in this population of patients, as swallowing success will occur most frequently in patients < 70 years old, with optimal timing for a successful swallow outcome at approximately 3 weeks post tracheotomy.