Risk Factors for Postextubation Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To identify, describe, and where possible meaningfully synthesize the reported risk factors for postextubation dysphagia (PED) in critically ill patients. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic search of peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted in common scientific databases to identify previously evaluated risk factors of PED. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment used a double-blind approach. Random effects models were used for the meta-analyses. Meta-analyses were conducted where sufficient study numbers allowed after accounting for statistical and clinical heterogeneity. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included, which investigated a total of 150 potential risk factors. Of these, 63 risk factors were previously identified by at least one study each as significantly increasing the risk of PED. After accounting for clinical and statistical heterogeneity, only two risk factors were suitable for meta-analysis, gender, and duration of intubation. In separate meta-analyses, neither gender (RR 1.00 [0.71, 1.43], I2  = 0%) nor duration of intubation (RR 1.54 [-0.40, 3.49], I2  = 0%) were significant predictors of PED. CONCLUSIONS: A large number of risk factors for PED have been reported in the literature. However, significant variability in swallowing assessment methods, patient populations, timing of assessment, and duration of intubation prevented meaningful meta-analyses for the majority of these risk factors. Where meta-analysis was possible, gender and duration of intubation were not identified as risk factors for PED. We discuss future directions in clinical and research contexts. Laryngoscope, 132:364-374, 2022.

Post-extubation dysphagia incidence in critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

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.