Predicting feeding-tube dependence in patients following endotracheal extubation: a two-item swallowing screen

Shu-Fen Siao, Wen-Hsuan Tseng, Tyng-Guey Wang, Yu-Chung Wei, Tzu-Yu Hsiao, Shih-Chi Ku, Cheryl Chia-Hui Chen, Shu-Fen Siao, Wen-Hsuan Tseng, Tyng-Guey Wang, Yu-Chung Wei, Tzu-Yu Hsiao, Shih-Chi Ku, Cheryl Chia-Hui Chen

Abstract

Background: To meet the surging demands for intubation and invasive ventilation as more COVID-19 patients begin their recovery, clinicians are challenged to find an ultra-brief and minimally invasive screen for postextubation dysphagia predicting feeding-tube dependence persisting for 72 h after extubation.

Methods: This study examined the predictive validity of a two-item swallowing screen on feeding-tube dependence over 72 h in patients following endotracheal extubation. Intensive-care-unit (ICU) patients (≥ 20 years) successfully extubated after ≥ 48 h endotracheal intubation were screened by trained nurses using the swallowing screen (comprising oral stereognosis and cough-reflex tests) 24 h postextubation. Feeding-tube dependence persisting for 72 h postextubation was abstracted from the medical record by an independent rater. To verify the results and cross-check whether the screen predicted penetration and/or aspiration during fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), participants agreeing to receive FEES were analyzed within 30 min of screening.

Results: The results showed that 95/123 participants (77.2%) failed the screen, which predicted ICU patients' prolonged (> 72 h) feeding-tube dependence, yielding sensitivity of 0.83, specificity of 0.35, and accuracy of 0.68. Failed-screen participants had 2.96-fold higher odds of feeding-tube dependence (95% CI, 1.13-7.76). For the 38 participants receiving FEES, the swallowing screen had 0.89 sensitivity to detect feeding-tube dependence and 0.86 sensitivity to predict penetration/aspiration, although specificity had room for improvement (0.36 and 0.21, respectively).

Conclusion: This ultra-brief swallowing screen is sufficiently sensitive to identify high-risk patients for feeding-tube dependence persisting over 72 h after extubation. Once identified, a further assessment and care are indicated to ensure the prompt return of patients' oral feeding.

Trial registration: NCT03284892, registered on September 15, 2017.

Keywords: Deglutition; Dysphagia; Endotracheal intubation; Feeding-tube dependence; Intensive care unit; Nutritional status; Swallowing.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow diagram

References

    1. Tsai MH, Ku SC, Wang TG, Hsiao TY, Lee JJ, Chan DC, et al. Swallowing dysfunction following endotracheal intubation: age matters. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;9(5):e3871. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003871.
    1. Macht M, Wimbish T, Clark BJ, Benson AB, Burnham EL, Williams A, et al. Postextubation dysphagia is persistent and associated with poor outcomes in survivors of critical illness. Crit Care. 2011;15:R231. doi: 10.1186/cc10472.
    1. Omura K, Komine A, Yanagigawa M, Chiba N, Osada M. Frequency and outcome of post-extubation dysphagia using nurse-performed swallowing screening protocol. Nurs Crit Care. 2019;24:70–75. doi: 10.1111/nicc.12359.
    1. Malandraki GA, Markaki V, Georgopoulos VC, Psychogios L, Nanaset S. Postextubation dysphagia in critical patients: a first report from the largest step-down intensive care unit in Greece. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2016;25:150–156. doi: 10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0069.
    1. Dobak S, Kelly D. Tough pill to swallow: postextubation dysphagia and nutrition impact in the intensive care unit. Nutr Clin Pract. 2021;36:80–87. doi: 10.1002/ncp.10602.
    1. Schefold JC, Berger D, Zürcher P, Lensch M, Perren A, Jakob SM, et al. Dysphagia in mechanically ventilated ICU patients (DYnAMICS): a prospective observational trial. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:2061–2069. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002765.
    1. Brodsky MB, Nollet JL, Spronk PE, González-Fernándezet M. Prevalence, pathophysiology, diagnostic modalities, and treatment options for dysphagia in critically Ill patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;99:1164–1170. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001440.
    1. Lynch YT, Clark BJ, Macht M, White SD, Taylor H, Wimbishet T, et al. The accuracy of the bedside swallowing evaluation for detecting aspiration in survivors of acute respiratory failure. J Crit Care. 2017;39:143–148. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.02.013.
    1. Leder SB, Warner HL, Suiter DM, Young NO, Bhattacharya B, Siner JM, et al. Evaluation of swallow function post-extubation: is it necessary to wait 24 hours? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2019;128:619–624. doi: 10.1177/0003489419836115.
    1. Johnson KL, Speirs L, Mitchell A, Przybyl H, Anderson D, Manos B, et al. Validation of a postextubation dysphagia screening tool for patients after prolonged endotracheal intubation. Am J Crit Care. 2018;27:89–96. doi: 10.4037/ajcc2018483.
    1. van Snippenburg W, Kröner A, Flim M, Hofhuis J, Buise M, Hemleret R, et al. Awareness and management of dysphagia in dutch intensive care units: a nationwide survey. Dysphagia. 2019;34:220–228. doi: 10.1007/s00455-018-9930-7.
    1. Dallal York J, Miller S, Chapin J, Gore S, Jeng E, Plowman EK. Swallowing screening practice patterns for nurses in the cardiac surgery intensive care unit. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29:4573–4582. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15490.
    1. Cichero JA, Heaton S, Bassett L. Triaging dysphagia: nurse screening for dysphagia in an acute hospital. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18:1649–1659. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02797.x.
    1. Christensen M, Trapl M. Development of a modified swallowing screening tool to manage post-extubation dysphagia. Nurs Crit Care. 2018;23:102–107. doi: 10.1111/nicc.12333.
    1. Nielsen AH, Gow ND, Svenningsen H. Translation and adaption of the Yale Swallow Protocol for a Danish intensive care setting. Scand J Caring Sci. 2020;35(4):1290–1300. doi: 10.1111/scs.12950.
    1. Etges CL, Scheeren B, Gomes E, Barbosa LDR. Screening tools for dysphagia: a systematic review. Codas. 2014;26:343–349. doi: 10.1590/2317-1782/20142014057.
    1. Park YH, Bang HL, Han HR, Chang HK. Dysphagia screening measures for use in nursing homes: a systematic review. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2015;45:1–13. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2015.45.1.1.
    1. Ramsey D, Smithard D, Kalra L. Silent aspiration: what do we know? Dysphagia. 2005;20:218–225. doi: 10.1007/s00455-005-0018-9.
    1. Langmore SE, Murray J. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) In: Shaker R, Easterling C, Belafsky P, Postma G, editors. Manual of diagnostic and therapeutic techniques for disorders of deglutition. New York: Springer; 2013. pp. 85–101.
    1. Boliek CA, Rieger JM, Li SYY, Mohamed Z, Kickham J, Amundsen K. Establishing a reliable protocol to measure tongue sensation. J Oral Rehabil. 2007;34:433–441. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01735.x.
    1. Su H, Hsiao TY, Ku SC, Wang TG, Lee JJ, Tzeng WC, et al. Tongue weakness and somatosensory disturbance following oral endotracheal extubation. Dysphagia. 2015;30:188–195. doi: 10.1007/s00455-014-9594-x.
    1. Sivapathasundharam B, Biswas PG. Oral stereognosis—a literature review. Eur J Mol Clin Med. 2020;7:1053–1063. doi: 10.31838/ejmcm.07.09.108.
    1. Miles A, Moore S, McFarlane M, Lee F, Allen J, Huckabeeet ML. Comparison of cough reflex test against instrumental assessment of aspiration. Physiol Behav. 2013;118:25–31. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.05.004.
    1. Morice AH, Fontana GA, Belvisi MG, Birring SS, Chung KF, Dicpinigaitis PV, et al. ERS guidelines on the assessment of cough. Eur Respir J. 2007;29:1256–1276. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00101006.
    1. Wu CH, Hsiao TY, Chen JC, Chang YC, Lee SY. Evaluation of swallowing safety with fiberoptic endoscope: comparison with videofluoroscopic technique. Laryngoscope. 1997;107:396–401. doi: 10.1097/00005537-199703000-00023.
    1. Kim SH, Kim DM, Park HE, Shin YB, Lee BJ, Jang MH, et al. Gold standard? Method of citric acid solution swallowing test as a screening test for patients with tracheostomy. Dysphagia. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s00455-021-10300-9.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir