Predictive factors of severity and persistence of oropharyngeal dysphagia in sub-acute stroke.

PURPOSE: This study aims to understand the factors contributing to the severity of oropharyngeal dysphagia and its persistence in the sub-acute phase of stroke. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the data of all the patients suffering from a stroke in the last year. The severity of stroke was reported according to the NIHSS score. All the patients were evaluated with the Dysphagia Risk Score and with a FEES. We classified the Dysphagia Risk Score and FEES results using the PAS score and ASHA-NOMS levels. The data were analysed statistically with ANOVA test, Student's t test and Pearson's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: A series of 54 patients were evaluated. The ANOVA test did not find any difference in the mean score of Dysphagia Risk Score, PAS and ASHA-NOMS when compared with the brain area of stroke. An NIHSS at hospital admission (stroke unit) of more than 12 was predictive of ASHA-NOMS score 1-4 after 60 days (p < 0.05). A PAS score between 6 and 8 at first FEES evaluation was predictive of poor (1-4) ASHA-NOMS score after 60 days (p < 0.01). A moderate positive linear correlation was found between NIHSS score and both PAS (r 0.65) and Dysphagia Risk Score (r 0.50); a moderate negative linear correlation was recorded between NIHSS and ASHA-NOMS (r - 0.66) scores. CONCLUSION: In the sub-acute phase of stroke, the predictive factors of persistent dysphagia are not linked to the damaged neuroanatomical region and others factors such as NIHSS value and high PAS score seem more useful.

Oropharyngeal dysphagia in elderly population suffering from mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia: Understanding the link.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prevalence of oropharyngeal dysphagia in elderly patients suffering from minimal or mild cognitive decline. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected the data of patients suffering from mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia and were undergoing management for suspected oropharyngeal dysphagia, in our department. All our patients were subjected to Mini Mental State Examination test, MD Anderson dysphagia inventory and caregiver mealtime and dysphagia questionnaire. We performed a mealtime observation study and endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in all our patients. Following evaluation, we then analysed the data statistically. RESULTS: Out of 708 patients who visited us for cognitive decline and suspected oropharyngeal dysphagia in the last two years, 52 patients were confirming to the inclusion criteria of this study. Classification of oropharyngeal dysphagia patients according to ASHA-NOMS scale showed that 32.7% of patients presented with grade 4 of dysphagia followed by another 32.7% with grade 5 and 30.8% presented with grade 6. Only 3.8% of our patients were considered normal (grade 7 of ASHA-NOMS scale). MD Anderson dysphagia inventory could collected swallowing alterations in only 23.1% of the cases. The caregiver mealtime and dysphagia questionnaire showed acceptable caregivers patient management in 53.8% of patients. CONCLUSION: Our study underscores the fact that oropharyngeal dysphagia is present in many cases of mild cognitive decline. While patients understate their swallowing problems, the caregivers are not competent enough to manage this situation in a great percentage of cases. Only a mealtime observation by a speech-language pathologist along with FEES is able to identify the true prevalence of the condition.