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: It is currently not known whether vaporized perfluorohexane is superior to partial liquid ventilation (PLV) for therapy of acute lung injury. In this study, the authors compared the effects of both therapies in oleic acid-induced lung injury. METHODS: Lung injury was induced in 30 anesthetized and mechanically ventilated pigs by means of central venous infusion of oleic acid. Animals were assigned to one of the following groups: (1) control or gas ventilation (GV), (2) 2.5% perfluorohexane vapor, (3) 5% perfluorohexane vapor, (4) 10% perfluorohexane vapor, or (5) PLV with perfluorooctane (30 ml/kg). Two hours after randomization, lungs were recruited and positive end-expiratory pressure was adjusted to obtain minimal elastance. Ventilation was continued during 4 additional hours, when animals were killed for lung histologic examination. RESULTS: Gas exchange and elastance were comparable among vaporized perfluorohexane, PLV, and GV before the open lung approach was used and improved in a similar fashion in all groups after positive end-expiratory pressure was adjusted to optimal elastance (P < 0.05). A similar behavior was observed in functional residual capacity (FRC) in animals treated with vaporized perfluorohexane and GV. Lung resistance improved after recruitment (P < 0.05), but values were higher in the 10% perfluorohexane and PLV groups as compared with GV (P < 0.05). Interestingly, positive end-expiratory pressure values required to obtain minimal elastance were lower with 5% perfluorohexane than with PLV and GV (P < 0.05). In addition, diffuse alveolar damage was significantly lower in the 5% and 10% perfluorohexane vapor groups as compared with PLV and GV (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of 5% vaporized perfluorohexane permitted the authors to reduce pressures needed to stabilize the lungs and was associated with better histologic findings than were PLV and GV, none of these perfluorocarbon therapies improved gas exchange or lung mechanics as compared with GV.
