Presbylarynx: Is it Possible to Predict Glottal Gap by Cut-Off Points in Auto-Assessment Questionnaires?

PURPOSE: To determine cut-off points in auto-assessment questionnaires to predict the presence and extent of presbylarynx signs. METHOD: This case control, prospective, observational, and cross-sectional study was carried out on consecutive subjects observed by Otorhinolaryngology, in a tertiary center, in 2020. Each subject underwent fiberoptic videolaryngoscopy with stroboscopy, and presbylarynx was considered when it was identified two or more of the following endoscopic findings: vocal fold bowing, prominence of vocal processes in abduction, and a spindle-shaped glottal gap. Each subject completed three questionnaires: the Voice Handicap Index (VHI), with 30 and 10 questions, and the "Screening for voice disorders in older adults questionnaire" (RAVI). RESULTS: The studied population included 174 Caucasian subjects (60 males; 114 females), with a mean age of 73.99 years (standard deviation = 6.37; range 65-95 years). Presbylarynx was identified in 71 patients (41%). Among patients with presbylarynx, a glottal gap was identified in 22 patients (31%). The mean score of VHI-30 between "no presbylarynx" and "presbylarynx" groups was statistically different (P < 0.001), with a higher score for subjects with signs of presbylarynx. The presence of glottal gap was associated to a higher mean score of VHI-30 (41.64 ± 11.87) (P < 0.001). The mean score of VHI-10 between "no presbylarynx" and "presbylarynx" groups was statistically different (P < 0.001), with a higher score for subjects with signs of presbylarynx. Among patients with presbylarynx, the presence of glottal gap was associated to higher mean score of VHI-10 (14.04 ± 3.91) (P < 0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between VHI-30 and VHI-10 (rs = 0.969; P < 0.001). The mean score of RAVI between "no presbylarynx" and "presbylarynx" groups was statistically different (P < 0.001), with a higher score for subjects with signs of presbylarynx. Among patients with presbylarynx, the presence of glottal gap was associated to a higher mean score of RAVI (11.68 ± 1.61) (P < 0.001). There was a strong positive correlation not only between RAVI and VHI-30 (rs = 0.922; P < 0.001), but also between RAVI and VHI-10 (rs = 0.906; P < 0.001). The optimal cut-off points to discriminate "no presbylarynx" from "presbylarynx", obtained by the Youden' index, were 3.5 for RAVI, 4.5 for VHI-30 and 1.5 for VHI-10. RAVI had the highest sensitivity and specificity. The optimal cut-off points to predict glottal gap, obtained by the Youden' index, were 9.5 for RAVI, 21 for VHI-30 and 7.5 for VHI-10. CONCLUSION: The optimal cut-off points do discriminate "no presbylarynx" from "presbylarynx" were 3.5 for RAVI, 4.5 for VHI-30 and 1.5 for VHI-10. RAVI had the highest sensitivity and specificity, probably because it was designed specifically for vocal complaints of the elderly. Among patients with presbylarynx, cut-off points of 9.5 for RAVI, 21 for VHI-30 and 7.5 for VHI-10 were determined to predict patients with and without glottal gap. It was found a strong positive correlation between RAVI, VHI-30 and VHI-10. Thus, VHI-10 can be preferred to VHI-30 to assess voice impairment in clinical practice, because for elderly patients it is easier to answer. However, to predict endoscopic signs of presbylarynx, RAVI should be preferred.

Assessment, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Dysphagia in Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2: A Review of the Literature and International Guidelines.

Purpose Speech-language pathologists are playing a crucial role in the assessment and management of patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Our goal was to synthesize peer-reviewed literature and association guidelines from around the world regarding dysphagia assessment and management for this specific population. Method A review of publications available in the PubMed database and official guidelines of international groups was performed on May 23, 2020. The information was synthesized and categorized into three content areas for swallowing: clinical evaluation, instrumental assessment, and rehabilitation. Results Five publications were identified in the PubMed database. Following title, abstract, and full-text review, only three publications met inclusion criteria: two reviews and one narrative report. Additionally, 19 international guidelines were reviewed. To assess swallowing, a modified clinical evaluation was recommended and only following a risk assessment. Instrumental assessments were often considered aerosol generating, especially transnasal procedures such as endoscopy and manometry. For this reason, many associations recommended that these examinations be performed only when essential and with appropriate personal protective equipment. Guidelines recommended that intervention should focus on compensatory strategies, including bolus modification, maneuvers/postural changes, and therapeutic exercises that can be conducted with physical distancing. Respiratory training devices were not recommended during rehabilitation. Conclusions International associations have provided extensive guidance regarding the level of risk related to the management of dysphagia in this population. To date, there are no scientific papers offering disease and/or recovery profiling for patients with dysphagia and coronavirus disease 2019. As a result, research in this area is urgently needed.