RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: At present, the flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is one of the most commonly used methods for the objective assessment of swallowing. This multicenter trial prospectively collected data on the safety of FEES and also assessed the impact of this procedure on clinical dysphagia management. METHODS: Patients were recruited in 23 hospitals in Germany and Switzerland from September 2014 to May 2017. Patient characteristics, professional affiliation of the FEES examiners (physicians or speech and language therapists), side-effects and cardiorespiratory parameters, severity of dysphagia and clinical consequences of FEES were documented. RESULTS: 2401 patients, mean age 69.8 (14.6) years, 42.3% women, were included in the FEES-registry. The most common main diagnosis was stroke (61%), followed by Parkinson's disease (6.5%). FEES was well tolerated by patients. Complications were reported in 2% of examinations, were all self-limited and resolved without sequelae and showed no correlation to the endoscopist's previous experience. In more than 50% of investigations FEES led to changes of feeding strategies, in the majority of cases an upgrade of oral diet was possible. DISCUSSION: This study confirmed that FEES, even when performed by less experienced clinicians is a safe and well tolerated procedure and significantly impacts on the patients' clinical course. Implementation of a FEES-service in different clinical settings may improve dysphagia care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03037762, registered January 31st 2017.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Constraint-induced aphasia therapy (CIAT) has proven effective in patients with subacute and chronic forms of aphasia. It has remained unclear, however, whether intensity of therapy or constraint is the relevant factor. Data about intensive speech and language therapy (SLT) are conflicting. OBJECTIVE: To identify the effective component of CIAT and assess the feasibility of SLT in the acute stage after stroke. METHOD: A total of 60 patients with aphasia (68.2 ± 11.7 years) were enrolled 18.9 days after first-ever stroke. They were randomly distributed into 3 groups: (1) CIAT group receiving therapy for 3 hours per day (10 workdays, total 30 hours); (2) conventional communication treatment group, with same intensity without constraints; and (3) control group receiving individual therapy twice a day as well as group therapy (total 14 hours). Patients were assessed pretreatment and posttreatment using the Aachener Aphasia Test (primary end point: token test) and the Communicative Activity Log (CAL). RESULTS: Pretreatment, there were no between-group differences. Posttreatment, all groups showed significant improvements without between-group differences. CONCLUSION: It was found that 14 hours of aphasia therapy administered within 2 weeks as individual therapy, focusing on individual deficits, combined with group sessions has proven to be most efficient. This approach yielded the same outcome as 30 hours of group therapy, either in the form of CIAT or group therapy without constraints. SLT in an intensive treatment schedule is feasible and was well tolerated in the acute stage after stroke.
