Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation Of Swallowing Examination Research Articles

Diagnostic accuracy of the ‘Dysphagia Screening Tool for Geriatric Patients’ (DSTG) compared to Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) for assessing dysphagia in hospitalized geriatric patients – a diagnostic study

BackgroundOropharyngeal dysphagia is highly prevalent among hospitalized geriatric patients. The screening instruments used to date have been evaluated primarily in stroke patients. This diagnostic study aimed to validate a new screening instrument for oropharyngeal dysphagia, the ‘Dysphagia Screening Tool for Geriatric Patients’ (DSTG), as compared to one of the gold standards, flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES).Materials and methodsGeriatric inpatients admitted to five geriatric hospitals in Germany were consecutively evaluated using both DSTG and FEES in random order and by different evaluators blinded to the results of the other evaluation. In the FEES examination, a score of more than 3 on Rosenbek’s Penetration Aspiration Scale was considered evidence of clinically relevant oropharyngeal dysphagia. Sensitivity, specificity and further measures of test performance were calculated for DSTG.ResultsThe 53 volunteers recruited were on average 85 years of age, 56.6% were women. Twenty patients (37.7%) were diagnosed with dysphagia using FEES. Of these, 12 were screened as positive on DSTG. Of the 33 FEES negative patients, 4 tested positive on DSTG. The following test parameters were calculated for DSTG: sensitivity: 0.60, 95% confidence interval [0.39 ; 0.78], specificity 0.88 [0.73 ; 0.95], positive predictive value 0.75 [0.51 ; 0.90], negative predictive value 0.78 [0.63 ; 0.89], positive likelihood ratio 4.95 [1.85 ; 13.27], negative likelihood ratio 0.46 [0.26 ; 0.79]. In a receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.77 [0.62 ; 0.91]. No adverse events occurred.ConclusionThe DSTG appears to be a valid instrument for screening of oropharyngeal dysphagia in geriatric inpatients.

Flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in neurology

Neurogenic dysphagia is afrequent symptom in avariety of neurological diseases. The establishment of the flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) in the field of neurology has led to improvements in the diagnostics and treatment of patients with dysphagia. The aim of this review is to present the development of the FEES examination in the field of neurology. Furthermore, the additive value in the diagnostic classification of neurogenic dysphagia is elucidated and the impact on treatment management in patients with dysphagia is highlighted. Narrative literature review. The FEES examination is asafe and well-tolerated method for the diagnostics of neurogenic dysphagia. It enables the valid investigation of the swallowing function within the very heterogeneous neurological patient population. It has become an important diagnostic tool, not only in the assessment of the severity of dysphagia and the risk of aspiration but also as areliable method for the etiological classification of symptoms of deglutition disorders. As FEES can be performed at the bedside and does not require radiation exposure, it can be used not only to examine critically ill patients (point of care diagnostics) but also to monitor treatment. The systematic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing is established as an important functional diagnostic tool in the field of neurology. Further developments to increase the use of FEES in clinically related disciplines such as neurosurgery, neuro-oncology or psychiatry are pending.

Sarcopenic Dysphagia Revisited: A Cross-Sectional Study in Hospitalized Geriatric Patients.

Oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) is a frequent finding in older patients with potentially lethal complications such as aspiration pneumonia, malnutrition, and dehydration. Recent studies describe sarcopenia as a causative factor for OD, which is occasionally referred to as "sarcopenic dysphagia" in the absence of a neurogenic etiology. In most of the previous studies on sarcopenic dysphagia, the diagnosis was based only on clinical assessment. In this study, flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) was used as an objective method to evaluate the presence of OD, its association with sarcopenia, and the presence of pure sarcopenic dysphagia. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 109 acute care geriatric hospital patients with suspected OD received FEES examination and bioimpedance analysis (BIA) in clinical routine. 95% of patients had at least one neurological disease, 70% fulfilled the criteria for sarcopenia, and 45% displayed moderate or severe OD. Although the prevalence of sarcopenia and OD was high, there was no significant association between OD and sarcopenia. Considering these results, both the association between sarcopenia and OD and pure sarcopenic dysphagia appear questionable. Further prospective studies are needed to elucidate if sarcopenia is merely an epiphenomenon of severe disease or whether it plays a causative role in the development of OD.

Zkušenosti s objektivním vyšetřením schopnosti polykání pomocí fl exibilní endoskopie v letech 2014–2021

Introduction: Flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is an objective dia gnostic method designed to assess the oropharyngeal dysphagia. The presence of swallowing disorder and the optimal management settings signifi cantly aff ect patients’ clinical status and quality of life. Methods: From 2014 to 2021, FEES was prospectively evaluated against the penetration-aspiration scale for eight disease categories – stroke, other focal brain lesions, head and neck tumours, neurodegenerative diseases, refl ux diseases, polyneuropathy associated with artifi cial lung ventilation, cervical spine surgery and other diseases. Results: A total of 2,601 FEES examinations were carried out at our workplace. Oropharyngeal dysphagia was confi rmed in two-thirds of all cases. The highest incidence of penetration and aspiration, i.e. in more than 70% of examinations, has been shown in stroke and other focal brain lesions. In one quarter of all examinations in the total set, silent aspiration was demonstrated. Conclusion: The objective examination of swallowing FEES should be part of comprehensive hospital care for a patient at risk of dysphagia. Early detection of swallowing pathology reduces the risk of complications associated with dysphagia. FEES examination is an important dia gnostic method within the framework of interdisciplinary cooperation, not only in patients with diseases in the ENT area. Keywords: risk assessment – dysphagia – endoskopy – diagnostic techniques and procedures

Implementation of Pediatric Flexible-Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Research

BackgroundAlthough pediatric flexible-endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) has developed into a standard in dysphagia diagnostics, there are no valid protocols and procedures for children available to date.ObjectiveThis systematic PROSPERO-registered review aimed to identify implementation protocols for pediatric FEES described in research studies, and to analyze them in detail concerning procedural steps, equipment, and reported outcome.MethodsIncluded were all studies reporting a pediatric FEES protocol for children aged 0–18 years, if they described at least two criteria defined in advance. The databases MEDLINE and CINHAL were searched systematically from January 2000 to February 2021. Risk of bias for included studies was assessed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. A narrative synthesis of the FEES protocols was conducted and the results compared in tabular form.ResultsIn total 22 studies were included, reporting on FEES in 1547 infants, children, and adolescents with a wide range of diagnoses. It was possible to identify protocols related to all age groups in general as well as to particular groups such as breastfed or bottle-fed infants. None of the included studies demonstrated a good methodological quality; all studies had missing data. Uniform implementation for sub-groups could not be determined. The reported outcome of FEES examinations could not be compared.DiscussionNone of the included studies showed good methodological quality and a significant amount of data were missing; the review still offers a systematic basis for future research to close the serious gap in the area of pediatric FEES. A proposal is made for a minimum requirement for pediatric FEES protocols in scientific studies.

Adaptation and Validation of the Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity for Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing: DIGEST-FEES.

Purpose While flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is a common clinical procedure used in the head and neck cancer (HNC) population, extant outcome measures for FEES such as bolus-level penetration-aspiration and residue scores are not well suited as global patient-level endpoint measures of dysphagia severity in cooperative group trials or clinical outcomes research. The Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) was initially developed and validated for use during videofluoroscopic evaluations as a way to grade safety, efficiency, and overall pharyngeal swallowing impairment. The purpose of this study was to adapt and validate DIGEST for use with FEES. Method A modified Delphi exercise was conducted for content validation, expert consensus, adaptation, and operationalization of DIGEST-FEES. Three blinded, expert raters then evaluated 100 de-identified post-HNC treatment FEES examinations. Intra- and interrater reliability were tested with quadratic weighted kappa. Criterion validity against the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory, Functional Oral Intake Scale, Secretion Severity Scale, and Yale Residue Rating Scale was assessed with Spearman correlation coefficients. Results Interrater reliability was almost perfect for overall DIGEST-FEES grade (κw = 0.83) and safety grade (κw = 0.86) and substantial for efficiency grade (κw = 0.74). Intrarater reliability was excellent for all raters (0.9-0.91). Overall DIGEST-FEES grade correlated with MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (r = -.43, p < .0001), Functional Oral Intake Scale (r = -.43, p < .0001), Secretion Severity Scale (r = .47, p < .0001), Yale Vallecular Residue (r = .73, p < .0001), and Yale Pyriform Sinus Residue (r = .65, p < .0001). Conclusion DIGEST-FEES is a valid and reliable scale to describe the severity of pharyngeal dysphagia in patients with HNC. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14642787.

Incidental Laryngeal Findings on Bedside Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing in a Community Hospital Setting.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of laryngeal pathology found during bedside flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) in a community hospital. A retrospective study among patients who underwent a bedside FEES examination from May 2018 to May 2019. Criteria to perform a bedside FEES exam were patients who were identified through nursing screening swallowing evaluation and failed a bedside clinical evaluation of swallowing by a speech language pathologist. Patient demographics, recent intubation, duration of intubation, dysphonia complaints, laryngeal exam findings, consultation to otolaryngology and intervention were reviewed. Seventy-five patients had an inpatient bedside FEES. All (100%) had subjective complaints of swallowing. 29 (38.66%) had laryngeal pathology identified on FEES examination including unilateral vocal fold immobility (9), fungal infections (6), vocal fold lesion (3), edema (3), erythema (3), vocal process granuloma (2), unilateral TVF Hemorrhage (1), unilateral TVF paresis (1), suspected superior laryngeal nerve palsy (1). Seventeen of the twenty-nine (58.6%) examinations with incidental laryngeal finding received an otolaryngology referral. Twenty-three of the twenty-nine patients with laryngeal findings (79.3%) were intubated during the hospitalization. Bedside FEES is a well-established method to evaluate swallowing function in an inpatient population. Even in a community hospital, routine FEES examinations led to a high rate of detection of clinically significant laryngeal pathology.

Dysphagia Screening in Parkinson's Disease. A diagnostic accuracy cross-sectional study investigating the applicability of the Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS).

Simple water-swallowing screening tools are not predictive of aspiration and dysphagia in patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD). We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of a multi-texture screening tool, the Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS) to identify aspiration and dysphagia/penetration in PD patients compared to flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). Swallowing function was evaluated in 51 PD participants in clinical 'on-medication' state with the GUSS and a FEES examination according to standardized protocols. Inter-rater reliability and convergent validity were determined and GUSS- and FEES-based diet recommendations were compared. Inter-rater reliability of GUSS ratings was high (rs =0.8; p<0.001). Aspiration was identified by the GUSS with a sensitivity of 50%, and specificity of 51.35% (PPV 28%, NPV 73%, LR+ 1.03, LR- 0.97), dysphagia/penetration was identified with 72.97% sensitivity and 35.71% specificity (PPV 75%, NPV 33.33%, LR+ 1.14, LR- 0.76). Agreement between GUSS- and FEES-based diet recommendations was low (rs =0.12, p=0.42) with consistent NPO (Nil per Os) allocation by GUSS and FEES in only one participant. The multi-texture screening tool GUSS in its current form, although applicable with good inter-rater reliability, does not detect aspiration in PD patients with acceptable accuracy. Modifications of the GUSS parameters "coughing," "voice change" and "delayed swallowing" might enhance validity. The GUSS' diet recommendations overestimate the need for oral intake restriction in PD patients and should be verified by instrumental swallowing examination.

Adjustment of oral diet based on flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) in acute stroke patients: a cross-sectional hospital-based registry study

BackgroundDiagnosing dysphagia in acute stroke patients is crucial, as this comorbidity determines morbidity and mortality; we therefore investigated the impact of flexible nasolaryngeal endoscopy (FEES) in acute stroke patients.MethodsThe FEES investigation as performed in acute stroke patients treated at a large university hospital, allocated as a standard procedure for all patients suspected of dysphagia. We correlated our findings with baseline data, disability status, pneumonia, duration of hospitalisation, necessity for mechanical ventilation and treatment on the intensive care unit. The study was designed as a cross-sectional hospital-based registry.ResultsWe investigated 152 patients. The median age was 73; 94 were male. Ischemic stroke was diagnosed in 125 patients (82.2%); 27 (17.8%) suffered intracerebral haemorrhage.Oropharyngeal dysphagia was diagnosed in 72.4% of the patients, and was associated with higher stroke severity on admission (median NIHSS 11 [IQR 6–17] vs. 7 [4–12], p = .013; median mRS 5 [IQR 4–5] vs. 4 [IQR 3–5], p = .012). Short-term mortality was higher among patients diagnosed with dysphagia (7.2% vs. 0%, p = .107). FEES examinations revealed that only 30.9% of the patients had an oral diet appropriate for their swallowing abilities.A change of oral diet was associated with a better outcome at discharge (mRS; p = .006), less need of mechanical ventilation (p = .028), shorter period of hospitalisation (p = .044), and lower rates of pneumonia (p = .007) and mortality (p = .011).ConclusionDue to the inability of clinical assessments to detect silent aspiration, FEES might be better suited to identify stroke patients at risk and may contribute to a better functional outcome and lower rates of pneumonia and mortality. Our findings also point to a low awareness of dysphagia, even in a specialised stroke centre.FEES in acute stroke patients helps to adjust the oral diet for the vast majority of stroke patients (69.1%) based on their swallowing abilities, potentially avoiding severe complications.

Safety of flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing examination in gastroenterological practice

In South Korea, the flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) has been increasingly performed by gastroenterologists. The principal concern was the safety of the FEES performed by gastroenterologists without any involvement of speech-language pathologists. We aimed to characterize the safety and tolerance of gastroenterologist-directed FEES examinations (GDFEES). We evaluated the GDFEES failures, safety profile (laryngospasm, epistaxis, vasovagal syncope, airway compromise, heart rate, blood pressure, and significant change in cardiovascular function), and discomfort level in patients undergoing GDFEES. These outcomes were also analyzed based on gender, age, and calendar period. A total 303 examinations in 268 adult patients with dysphagia were performed during the study period. The GDFEES failures occurred in 5 patients (1.7%). The causes of failures were poor co-operation and insertion difficulty. There were no instances of laryngospasm or vasovagal syncope or significant cardiovascular changes in any of the examinations. Self-limiting epistaxis occurred in 22 examinations (7.3%). The discomfort ratings were as follows: 128 examinations (43.0%) rated the overall discomfort of the test as none, 150 (50.3%) as mild, 18 (6.0%) as moderate, and 2 (0.7%) as severe discomfort. The discomfort level was significantly different only between the first and second half periods (p <0.001), but it was related to neither gender nor age. The GDFEES can be endorsed as an appropriate paradigm for clinical practice based on our study investigating its safety and tolerance.

Use of topical nasal anesthesia during flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in dysphagic patients.

This study aimed to determine the effect of topical lidocaine on Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) scores and patient comfort and tolerance of flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) examinations in dysphagic patients. Adults with dysphagia referred for swallowing evaluation were recruited to participate in consecutive nonanesthetized and then anesthetized FEES examinations. Under endoscopic visualization, participants consumed 6 swallows consisting of graduated volumes of milk, pudding, and cracker in each condition and recorded their discomfort and tolerance in the 2 conditions. Penetration-Aspiration Scale scores were assigned in blinded fashion for each swallow. Twenty-five adults participated in the study. Although there was no statistically significant effect of anesthesia on PAS scores (P=.065), the odds of a higher PAS score were 33% higher during anesthetized swallows. The anesthetized condition yielded significantly less discomfort and pain during the examination, significantly less pain and discomfort during insertion and removal of the endoscope, and significantly greater overall tolerance than the nonanesthetized condition. The use of topical lidocaine during FEES may impair swallowing ability in patients with dysphagia, but this result does not achieve statistical significance. Topical nasal anesthesia significantly reduces subjective pain and discomfort and improves tolerance during FEES.