Refine
Language
- English (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Keywords
- FEES (3) (remove)
Institute
Background
Simple water-swallowing screening tools are not predictive of aspiration and dysphagia in patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD). We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of a multi-texture screening tool, the Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS) to identify aspiration and dysphagia/penetration in PD patients compared to flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES).
Methods
Swallowing function was evaluated in 51 PD participants in clinical 'on-medication' state with the GUSS and a FEES examination according to standardized protocols. Inter-rater reliability and convergent validity were determined and GUSS- and FEES-based diet recommendations were compared.
Key Results
Inter-rater reliability of GUSS ratings was high (r(s) = 0.8; p < 0.001). Aspiration was identified by the GUSS with a sensitivity of 50%, and specificity of 51.35% (PPV 28%, NPV 73%, LR+ 1.03, LR- 0.97), dysphagia/penetration was identified with 72.97% sensitivity and 35.71% specificity (PPV 75%, NPV 33.33%, LR+ 1.14, LR- 0.76). Agreement between GUSS- and FEES-based diet recommendations was low (r(s) = 0.12, p = 0.42) with consistent NPO (Nil per Os) allocation by GUSS and FEES in only one participant.
Conclusions and Inferences
The multi-texture screening tool GUSS in its current form, although applicable with good inter-rater reliability, does not detect aspiration in PD patients with acceptable accuracy. Modifications of the GUSS parameters "coughing," "voice change" and "delayed swallowing" might enhance validity. The GUSS' diet recommendations overestimate the need for oral intake restriction in PD patients and should be verified by instrumental swallowing examination.
Background
Simple water-swallowing screening tools are not predictive of aspiration and dysphagia in patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD). We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of a multi-texture screening tool, the Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS) to identify aspiration and dysphagia/penetration in PD patients compared to flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES).
Methods
Swallowing function was evaluated in 51 PD participants in clinical 'on-medication' state with the GUSS and a FEES examination according to standardized protocols. Inter-rater reliability and convergent validity were determined and GUSS- and FEES-based diet recommendations were compared.
Key Results
Inter-rater reliability of GUSS ratings was high (r(s) = 0.8; p < 0.001). Aspiration was identified by the GUSS with a sensitivity of 50%, and specificity of 51.35% (PPV 28%, NPV 73%, LR+ 1.03, LR- 0.97), dysphagia/penetration was identified with 72.97% sensitivity and 35.71% specificity (PPV 75%, NPV 33.33%, LR+ 1.14, LR- 0.76). Agreement between GUSS- and FEES-based diet recommendations was low (r(s) = 0.12, p = 0.42) with consistent NPO (Nil per Os) allocation by GUSS and FEES in only one participant.
Conclusions and Inferences
The multi-texture screening tool GUSS in its current form, although applicable with good inter-rater reliability, does not detect aspiration in PD patients with acceptable accuracy. Modifications of the GUSS parameters "coughing," "voice change" and "delayed swallowing" might enhance validity. The GUSS' diet recommendations overestimate the need for oral intake restriction in PD patients and should be verified by instrumental swallowing examination.
Background
Dysphagia is a major clinical concern in multiple system atrophy (MSA). A detailed evaluation of its major endoscopic features compared with Parkinson's disease (PD) is lacking.
Objective
This study systematically assessed dysphagia in MSA compared with PD and correlated subjective dysphagia to objective endoscopic findings.
Methods
Fifty-seven patients with MSA (median, 64 [interquartile range (IQR): 59-71] years; 35 women) underwent flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing using a specific MSA-flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing task protocol. Findings were compared with an age-matched cohort of 57 patients with PD (median, 67 [interquartile range: 60-73] years; 28 women). In a subcohort, subjective dysphagia was assessed using the Swallowing Disturbance Questionnaire and correlated to endoscopy findings.
Results
Patients with MSA predominantly showed symptoms suggestive of oral-phase disturbance (premature spillage, 75.4%, piecemeal deglutition, 75.4%). Pharyngeal-phase symptoms occurred less often (pharyngeal residues, 50.9%; penetration/aspiration, 28.1%). In contrast, pharyngeal symptoms were the most common finding in PD (pharyngeal residues, 47.4%). Oral symptoms occurred less frequently in PD (premature spillage, 15.8%, P < 0.001; piecemeal deglutition, 1.8%, P < 0.01). Patients with MSA had a greater risk for oral-phase disturbances with increased disease severity (P < 0.05; odds ratio, 3.15). Patients with MSA showed a significantly higher intraindividual interswallow variability compared with PD. When correlating Swallowing Disturbance Questionnaire scores with endoscopy results, its cutoff, validated for PD, was not sensitive enough to identify patients with MSA with dysphagia. We developed a subscore for identifying dysphagia in MSA and calculated a new cutoff (sensitivity 85%, specificity 100%).
Conclusions
In contrast with patients with PD, patients with dysphagic MSA more frequently present with oral-phase symptoms and a significantly higher intraindividual interswallow variability. A novel Swallowing Disturbance Questionnaire MSA subscore may be a valuable tool to identify patients with MSA with early oropharyngeal dysphagia.