Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

FEES Protocol Derived Estimates of Sensitivity: Aspiration in Dysphagic Patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Dysphagia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aspiration is a common phenomenon in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. It can be studied using fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). FEES is well known and widely used in the diagnosis and treatment of swallowing disorders. However, various protocols exist, and there is no consensus on the examination protocol. The objective of this prospective study was to determine the FEES protocol derived estimates of sensitivity (Se′) to detection of aspiration in dysphagic patients. The study estimated the probability of aspiration as a function of the number of swallow trials in dysphagic patients using FEES. The derived sensitivity was calculated based on presence or absence of aspiration in a ten-swallow trial protocol as arbitrary ‘gold standard’. Eighty-four persons were included, comprising two patient populations with oropharyngeal dysphagia. Dysphagia in one group was due to head and neck cancer and possible oncological treatment effects on swallowing; in the other it was a result of neurological disease. All patients underwent a standardized FEES examination using ten swallows of thin liquid followed by ten swallows of thick liquid, all in boluses of 10 cc each. FEES recordings were rated for aspiration by an expert panel blinded to patients’ identity and clinical history. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis techniques, and Log Rank/Mantel–Cox tests were used. In both patient populations the aspiration risk was underestimated when using a limited number (three or four) of swallow trials. The oncology and neurology patients differed significantly in the number of swallow trials required to determine aspiration for thin liquids (median values 2 and 7 respectively, P = 0.006). FEES protocols using a limited number of swallow trials can underestimate the aspiration risk in both oncological and neurological patients suffering from oropharyngeal dysphagia, especially when using boluses with a thin liquid consistency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Martino R, Foley N, Bhogal S, Diamant N, Speechley M, Teasell R. Dysphagia after stroke: incidence, diagnosis, and pulmonary complications. Stroke. 2005;36:2756–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Marik PE, Kaplan D. Aspiration pneumonia and dysphagia in the elderly. Chest. 2003;124:328–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rosenbek JC, Robbins JA, Roecker EB, Coyle JL, Wood JL. A penetration-aspiration scale. Dysphagia. 1996;11:93–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kelly AM, Drinnan MJ, Leslie P. Assessing penetration and aspiration: how do videofluoroscopy and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing compare? Laryngoscope. 2007;117:1723–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Langmore SE, Aviv JE. Endoscopic evaluation and treatment of swallowing disorders. New York: Thieme; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Langmore SE. Evaluation of oropharyngeal dysphagia: which diagnostic tool is superior? Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;11:485–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dziewas R, Warnecke T, Ölenberg S, Teismann I, Zimmermann J, Krämer C, Ritter M, Ringelstein EB, Schäbitz WR. Towards a basic endoscopic assessment of swallowing in acute stroke – development and evaluation of a simple dysphagia score. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2008;26:41–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Leder SB, Espinosa JF. Aspiration risk after acute stroke: comparison of clinical examination and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. Dysphagia. 2002;17:214–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Warnecke T, Teismann I, Meimann W, Ölenberg S, Zimmermann J, Krämer C, Ringelstein EB, Schäbitz WR, Dziewas R. Assessment of aspiration risk in acute ischaemic stroke—evaluation of the simple swallowing provocation test. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79:312–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Baijens LW, Speyer R, Passos VL, Pilz W, van der Kruis J, Haarmans S, Desjardins-Rombouts C. Surface electrical stimulation in dysphagic parkinson patients: a randomized clinical trial. Laryngoscope. 2013. doi:10.1002/lary.24119.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bours GJ, Speyer R, Lemmens J, Limburg M, de Wit R. Bedside screening tests vs. videofluoroscopy or fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing to detect dysphagia in patients with neurological disorders: systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2009;65:477–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Baijens LWJ. Multidisciplinaire polikliniek voor dysfagie. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Keel-Neus-Oorheelkunde 18e jaargang nummer 1 januari 2012 p5-6.

  13. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini–mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–98.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Crary MA. Carnaby Mann GD, Groher ME. Initial psychometric assessment of a Functional Oral Intake Scale for dysphagia in stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1516–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Speyer R, Baijens L, Heijnen M, Zwijnenberg I. Effects of therapy in oropharyngeal dysphagia by speech and language therapists: a systematic review. Dysphagia. 2010;25:40–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Last JM. A dictionary of epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jager KJ, van Dijk PC, Zoccali C, Dekker FW. The analysis of survival data: the Kaplan–Meier method. Kidney Int. 2008;74:560–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Laura W. J. Baijens & Walmari Pilz

  2. School of Public Health, Tropical Medicine and Rehabilitation Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia

    Renée Speyer

  3. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Renée Speyer

  4. Department of Neurology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Nel Roodenburg

Authors
  1. Laura W. J. Baijens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Renée Speyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Walmari Pilz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nel Roodenburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura W. J. Baijens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baijens, L.W.J., Speyer, R., Pilz, W. et al. FEES Protocol Derived Estimates of Sensitivity: Aspiration in Dysphagic Patients. Dysphagia 29, 583–590 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-014-9549-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-014-9549-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation