-
Journal of the Neurological Sciences Nov 2021Dysphagia is common in Parkinson's disease (PD). The effects of antiparkinsonian drugs on dysphagia are controversial. Several treatments for dysphagia are available but... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dysphagia is common in Parkinson's disease (PD). The effects of antiparkinsonian drugs on dysphagia are controversial. Several treatments for dysphagia are available but there is no consensus on their efficacy in PD.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of the literature and to define consensus statements on the treatment of dysphagia in PD and related nutritional management.
METHODS
A multinational group of experts in the field of neurogenic dysphagia and/or Parkinson's disease conducted a systematic evaluation of the literature and reported the results according to PRISMA guidelines. The evidence from the retrieved studies was analyzed and discussed in a consensus conference organized in Pavia, Italy, and the consensus statements were drafted. The final version of statements was subsequently achieved by e-mail consensus.
RESULTS
The literature review retrieved 64 papers on treatment and nutrition of patients with PD and dysphagia, mainly of Class IV quality. Based on the literature and expert opinion in cases where the evidence was limited or lacking, 26 statements were developed.
CONCLUSIONS
The statements developed by the Consensus panel provide a guidance for a multi-disciplinary treatment of dysphagia in patients with PD, involving neurologists, otorhinolaryngologists, gastroenterologists, phoniatricians, speech-language pathologists, dieticians, and clinical nutritionists.
Topics: Consensus; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Italy; Parkinson Disease
PubMed: 34624796
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2021.120008 -
Dysphagia Feb 2023Oropharyngeal dysphagia is common post-stroke and can have serious consequences for patients. Understanding dysphagia recovery is critically important to inform... (Review)
Review
Oropharyngeal dysphagia is common post-stroke and can have serious consequences for patients. Understanding dysphagia recovery is critically important to inform prognostication and support patients and professionals with care planning. This systematic review was undertaken to identify clinical predictors of dysphagia recovery post-stroke. Online databases (EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane) were searched for studies reporting longitudinal swallowing recovery in adults post-stroke. Dysphagia recovery was defined as improvement measured on a clinical swallowing scale or upgrade in oral and/or enteral feeding status by the end of the follow-up period. The search strategy returned 6598 studies from which 87 studies went through full-text screening, and 19 studies were included that met the eligibility criteria. Age, airway compromise identified on instrumental assessment, dysphagia severity, bilateral lesions, and stroke severity were identified as predictors of persistent dysphagia and negative recovery in multiple logistic regression analysis. The available literature was predominated by retrospective data, and comparison of outcomes was limited by methodological differences across the studies in terms of the choice of assessment, measure of recovery, and period of follow-up. Future prospective research is warranted with increased representation of haemorrhagic strokes and uniform use of standardized scales of swallowing function.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Deglutition Disorders; Retrospective Studies; Stroke; Deglutition; Enteral Nutrition
PubMed: 35445366
DOI: 10.1007/s00455-022-10443-3 -
JAMA May 2015Achalasia significantly affects patients' quality of life and can be difficult to diagnose and treat. (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Achalasia significantly affects patients' quality of life and can be difficult to diagnose and treat.
OBJECTIVE
To review the diagnosis and management of achalasia, with a focus on phenotypic classification pertinent to therapeutic outcomes.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
Literature review and MEDLINE search of articles from January 2004 to February 2015. A total of 93 articles were included in the final literature review addressing facets of achalasia epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Nine randomized controlled trials focusing on endoscopic or surgical therapy for achalasia were included (734 total patients).
FINDINGS
A diagnosis of achalasia should be considered when patients present with dysphagia, chest pain, and refractory reflux symptoms after an endoscopy does not reveal a mechanical obstruction or an inflammatory cause of esophageal symptoms. Manometry should be performed if achalasia is suspected. Randomized controlled trials support treatments focused on disrupting the lower esophageal sphincter with pneumatic dilation (70%-90% effective) or laparoscopic myotomy (88%-95% effective). Patients with achalasia have a variable prognosis after endoscopic or surgical myotomy based on subtypes, with type II (absent peristalsis with abnormal pan-esophageal high-pressure patterns) having a very favorable outcome (96%) and type I (absent peristalsis without abnormal pressure) having an intermediate prognosis (81%) that is inversely associated with the degree of esophageal dilatation. In contrast, type III (absent peristalsis with distal esophageal spastic contractions) is a spastic variant with less favorable outcomes (66%) after treatment of the lower esophageal sphincter.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Achalasia should be considered when dysphagia is present and not explained by an obstruction or inflammatory process. Responses to treatment vary based on which achalasia subtype is present.
Topics: Botulinum Toxins; Chest Pain; Deglutition Disorders; Dilatation; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Esophageal Achalasia; Esophageal Sphincter, Lower; Esophagus; Humans; Manometry; Prognosis
PubMed: 25965233
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.2996 -
Australian Critical Care : Official... Jan 2021Post-extubation dysphagia has been associated with adverse health outcomes. To assist service planning and process development for early identification, an understanding... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Post-extubation dysphagia has been associated with adverse health outcomes. To assist service planning and process development for early identification, an understanding of the number of patients affected is required. However, significant variation exists in the reported incidence which ranges from 3% to 62%.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to (i) conduct a meta-analysis on the incidence of dysphagia after endotracheal intubation in adult critically ill patients and (ii) describe the extent of heterogeneity within peer-reviewed articles and grey literature on the incidence of dysphagia after endotracheal intubation.
DATA SOURCES
Databases CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, SpeechBITE, and Google Scholar were systematically searched for studies published before October 2019.
REVIEW METHODS
Data extraction occurred in a double-blind manner for studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was determined using critical appraisal tools relevant to the individual study design. The overall quality of the synthesised results was described using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Raw data were transformed using Freeman-Tukey arcsine square root methodology. A random-effects model was utilised owing to heterogeneity between studies.
RESULTS
Of 3564 identified studies, 38 met the criteria for inclusion in the final review. A total of 5798 patient events were analysed, with 1957 dysphagic episodes identified. The combined weighted incidence of post-extubation dysphagia was 41% (95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.50). Of the patients with dysphagia, 36% aspirated silently (n = 155, 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.50). Subgroup meta-regression analysis was unable to explain the heterogeneity across studies when accounting for the method of participant recruitment, method of dysphagia assessment, median duration of intubation, timing of dysphagia assessment, or patient population.
CONCLUSION
Dysphagia after endotracheal intubation is common and occurs in 41% of critically ill adults. Given the prevalence of dysphagia and high rates of silent aspiration in this population, further prospective research should focus on systematic and sensitive early identification methods.
Topics: Adult; Airway Extubation; Critical Illness; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Incidence; Intubation, Intratracheal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32739246
DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2020.05.008 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Aug 2021Chin tuck against resistance (CTAR) exercise has been recently reported to be a new therapeutic exercise method that can help improve swallowing function in patients... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chin tuck against resistance (CTAR) exercise has been recently reported to be a new therapeutic exercise method that can help improve swallowing function in patients with dysphagia. However, due to the differences in exercise protocols, methods and the tools used across studies of CTAR exercise, an overall systematic review of these studies is necessary.
OBJECTIVE
The present study investigated the exercise protocols, methods and tools used in various studies of CTAR exercise and summarised their findings.
METHODS
We searched for studies related to CTAR exercise using electronic databases and selected nine articles for review. The articles were categorised on the basis of four criteria: study design and quality, training protocol, outcome measures and clinical effect.
RESULTS
Four articles reported that CTAR exercise not only helped activate the suprahyoid muscle in healthy adults, but also activated the sternocleidomastoid muscle less than Shaker exercise. In addition, five articles reported that CTAR exercise was effective in improving swallowing function and oral diet stage in the pharyngeal phase, including reduction of airway aspiration in patients with dysphagia after stroke.
CONCLUSIONS
CTAR exercise more selectively activates the suprahyoid muscle and is an effective therapeutic exercise for improving swallowing function in patients with dysphagia. Because it is less strenuous than Shaker exercise, it requires less physical burden and effort, allowing greater compliance.
Topics: Adult; Chin; Deglutition; Deglutition Disorders; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Resistance Training
PubMed: 33973284
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13181 -
Nutrients Apr 2022Increasing bodies of epidemiological evidence indicate potential associations between dysphagia and the risk of frailty in older adults. We hypothesized that older... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Increasing bodies of epidemiological evidence indicate potential associations between dysphagia and the risk of frailty in older adults. We hypothesized that older adults with symptoms of dysphagia might have a higher prevalence of frailty or prefrailty than those without dysphagia.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies published through 20 April 2022. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that examined the associations between dysphagia and the existence of frailty or prefrailty in community-dwelling, facility-dwelling, or hospitalized adults aged 50 years or older were synthesized. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate study quality.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis comprised 12 cohorts, including 5,503,543 non-frailty participants and 735,303 cases of frailty or prefrailty. Random-effect meta-analysis demonstrated a significant association between dysphagia and the risk of frailty and prefrailty (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 2.51-4.20). In addition, we observed consistent results across the subgroups and heterogeneity assessments.
CONCLUSIONS
We propose including dysphagia assessment as a critical factor in the cumulative deficit model for identifying frailty in older adults. Understanding dysphagia and the potential role of nutritional supplements in older adults may lead to improved strategies for preventing, delaying, or mitigating frailty.
Topics: Aged; Cross-Sectional Studies; Deglutition Disorders; Frail Elderly; Frailty; Humans; Independent Living
PubMed: 35565784
DOI: 10.3390/nu14091812 -
Neurology Feb 2021Introduction and validation of a phenotypic classification of neurogenic dysphagia based on flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES).
OBJECTIVE
Introduction and validation of a phenotypic classification of neurogenic dysphagia based on flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES).
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted, searching MEDLINE from inception to May 2020 for FEES findings in neurologic diseases of interest. Based on a retrospective analysis of FEES videos in neurologic diseases and considering the results from the review, a classification of neurogenic dysphagia was developed distinguishing different phenotypes. The classification was validated using 1,012 randomly selected FEES videos of patients with various neurologic disorders. Chi-square tests were used to compare the distribution of dysphagia phenotypes between the underlying neurologic disorders.
RESULTS
A total of 159 articles were identified, of which 59 were included in the qualitative synthesis. Seven dysphagia phenotypes were identified: (1) "premature bolus spillage" and (2) "delayed swallowing reflex" occurred mainly in stroke, (3) "predominance of residue in the valleculae" was most common in Parkinson disease, (4) "predominance of residue in the piriform sinus" occurred only in myositis, motoneuron disease, and brainstem stroke, (5) "pharyngolaryngeal movement disorder" was found in atypical Parkinsonian syndromes and stroke, (6) "fatigable swallowing weakness" was common in myasthenia gravis, and (7) "complex disorder" with a heterogeneous dysphagia pattern was the leading mechanism in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The interrater reliability showed a strong agreement (kappa = 0.84).
CONCLUSION
Neurogenic dysphagia is not a symptom, but a multietiologic syndrome with different phenotypic patterns depending on the underlying disease. Dysphagia phenotypes can facilitate differential diagnosis in patients with dysphagia of unclear etiology.
Topics: Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Nervous System Diseases
PubMed: 33318164
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011350 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Feb 2016Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) affects up to 30% of adults in Western populations and is increasing in prevalence. GERD is associated with lifestyle factors,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) affects up to 30% of adults in Western populations and is increasing in prevalence. GERD is associated with lifestyle factors, particularly obesity and tobacco smoking, which also threatens the patient's general health. GERD carries the risk of several adverse outcomes and there is widespread use of potent acid-inhibitors, which are associated with long-term adverse effects. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the role of lifestyle intervention in the treatment of GERD.
METHODS
Literature searches were performed in PubMed (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1980), and the Cochrane Library (no start date) to October 1, 2014. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and prospective observational studies were included.
RESULTS
Weight loss was followed by decreased time with esophageal acid exposure in 2 RCTs (from 5.6% to 3.7% and from 8.0% to 5.5%), and reduced reflux symptoms in prospective observational studies. Tobacco smoking cessation reduced reflux symptoms in normal-weight individuals in a large prospective cohort study (odds ratio, 5.67). In RCTs, late evening meals increased time with supine acid exposure compared with early meals (5.2% point change), and head-of-the-bed elevation decreased time with supine acid exposure compared with a flat position (from 21% to 15%).
CONCLUSIONS
Weight loss and tobacco smoking cessation should be recommended to GERD patients who are obese and smoke, respectively. Avoiding late evening meals and head-of-the-bed elevation is effective in nocturnal GERD.
Topics: Behavior Therapy; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Life Style; Obesity; Prospective Studies; Smoking
PubMed: 25956834
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.04.176 -
Intensive Care Medicine Jul 2020To determine the effectiveness of dysphagia interventions compared to standard care in improving oral intake and reducing aspiration for adults in acute and critical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To determine the effectiveness of dysphagia interventions compared to standard care in improving oral intake and reducing aspiration for adults in acute and critical care.
METHODS
We searched electronic literature for randomised and quasi-randomised trials and bibliography lists of included studies to March 2020. Study screening, data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis used fixed effects modelling. The systematic review protocol is registered and published.
RESULTS
We identified 22 studies (19 stroke, 2 intensive care stroke and 1 general intensive care) testing 9 interventions and representing 1700 patients. Swallowing treatment showed no evidence of a difference in the time to return to oral intake (n = 33, MD (days) - 4.5, 95% CI - 10.6 to 1.6, 1 study, P = 0.15) (very low certainty) or in aspiration following treatment (n = 113, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.45, 4 studies, I = 0%, P = 0.45) (low certainty). Swallowing treatment showed evidence of a reduced risk of pneumonia (n = 719, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.89, 8 studies, I = 15%, P = 0.004) (low certainty) but no evidence of a difference in swallowing quality of life scores (n = 239, MD - 11.38, 95% CI - 23.83 to 1.08, I = 78%, P = 0.07) (very low certainty).
CONCLUSION
There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of swallowing treatments in the acute and critical care setting. Clinical trials consistently measuring patient-centred outcomes are needed.
Topics: Adult; Critical Care; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Pneumonia; Quality of Life; Stroke
PubMed: 32514597
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-020-06126-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Stroke can affect people's ability to swallow, resulting in passage of some food and drink into the airway. This can cause choking, chest infection, malnutrition and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Stroke can affect people's ability to swallow, resulting in passage of some food and drink into the airway. This can cause choking, chest infection, malnutrition and dehydration, reduced rehabilitation, increased risk of anxiety and depression, longer hospital stay, increased likelihood of discharge to a care home, and increased risk of death. Early identification and management of disordered swallowing reduces risk of these difficulties.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective • To determine the diagnostic accuracy and the sensitivity and specificity of bedside screening tests for detecting risk of aspiration associated with dysphagia in people with acute stroke Secondary objectives • To assess the influence of the following sources of heterogeneity on the diagnostic accuracy of bedside screening tools for dysphagia - Patient demographics (e.g. age, gender) - Time post stroke that the study was conducted (from admission to 48 hours) to ensure only hyperacute and acute stroke swallow screening tools are identified - Definition of dysphagia used by the study - Level of training of nursing staff (both grade and training in the screening tool) - Low-quality studies identified from the methodological quality checklist - Type and threshold of index test - Type of reference test SEARCH METHODS: In June 2017 and December 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; the reference lists of included studies; and grey literature sources. We contacted experts in the field to identify any ongoing studies and those potentially missed by the search strategy.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that were single-gate or two-gate studies comparing a bedside screening tool administered by nurses or other healthcare professionals (HCPs) with expert or instrumental assessment for detection of aspiration associated with dysphagia in adults with acute stroke admitted to hospital.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened each study using the eligibility criteria and then extracted data, including the sensitivity and specificity of each index test against the reference test. A third review author was available at each stage to settle disagreements. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) tool. We identified insufficient studies for each index test, so we performed no meta-analysis. Diagnostic accuracy data were presented as sensitivities and specificities for the index tests.
MAIN RESULTS
Overall, we included 25 studies in the review, four of which we included as narratives (with no accuracy statistics reported). The included studies involved 3953 participants and 37 screening tests. Of these, 24 screening tests used water only, six used water and other consistencies, and seven used other methods. For index tests using water only, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 46% to 100% and from 43% to 100%, respectively; for those using water and other consistencies, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 75% to 100% and from 69% to 90%, respectively; and for those using other methods, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 29% to 100% and from 39% to 86%, respectively. Twenty screening tests used expert assessment or the Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability (MASA) as the reference, six used fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), and 11 used videofluoroscopy (VF). Fifteen screening tools had an outcome of aspiration risk, 20 screening tools had an outcome of dysphagia, and two narrative papers did not report the outcome. Twenty-one screening tests were carried out by nurses, and 16 were carried out by other HCPs (not including speech and language therapists (SLTs)). We assessed a total of six studies as low risk across all four QUADAS-2 risk of bias domains, and we rated 15 studies as low concern across all three applicability domains. No single study demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity with low risk of bias for all domains. The best performing combined water swallow and instrumental tool was the Bedside Aspiration test (n = 50), the best performing water plus other consistencies tool was the Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS; n = 30), and the best water only swallow screening tool was the Toronto Bedside Swallowing Screening Test (TOR-BSST; n = 24). All tools demonstrated combined highest sensitivity and specificity and low risk of bias for all domains. However, clinicians should be cautious in their interpretation of these findings, as these tests are based on single studies with small sample sizes, which limits the estimates of reliability of screening tests.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We were unable to identify a single swallow screening tool with high and precisely estimated sensitivity and specificity based on at least one trial with low risk of bias. However, we were able to offer recommendations for further high-quality studies that are needed to improve the accuracy and clinical utility of bedside screening tools.
Topics: Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Mass Screening; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Stroke
PubMed: 34661279
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012679.pub2