Postextubation dysphagia (PED) is a common problem in critically ill patients with recent intubation. Although several risk factors have been identified, most of them are nonmodifiable preexisting or concurrent conditions. Early extubation, small endotracheal tube size, and small bore of nasogastric tube potentially decrease the risk of PED. The majority of patients receive treatment based on only bedside swallow evaluations, which has an uncertain diagnostic accuracy as opposed to gold standard instrumental tests. Therefore, the treatment decision for patients may not be appropriately directed for each individual. Current treatments are mainly focused on dietary modifications and postural changes/compensatory maneuvers rather than interventions, but recent studies have shown limited proven benefits. Direct therapies in oromotor control, such as therapeutic exercises and neuromuscular stimulations, should be considered as potential effective treatments. P ostextubation dysphagia (PED) is defi ned as the difficulty or inability to eff ectively and safely transfer food and liquid from the mouth to the stomach after extubation. It is commonly seen in trauma and critical care patients requiring endotracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation, especially after cardiac surgery (1, 2). PED may result in aspiration and its ensuing complications, such as aspiration pneumonia, chemical pneumonitis, transient hypoxemia, bronchospasm, or mechanical obstruction with atelectasis. As a result, malnutrition, prolonged hospital stays, fi nancial burden, and increased mortality occur (3, 4). Understanding the treatment modalities and screening tests is essential to minimize complications, improve quality of treatment, and develop standard screening guidelines. INCIDENCEOf 220,000 survivors of acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation each year in the US (5), 3% to 62% develop PED. Th e wide range of incidence could be explained by the diff erences in the population studied, diff erences in the sensitivity of diagnostic methods and the timing of the assessment, and the duration of intubation. Th e patients who required prolonged intubation from all diagnosis subtypes were found to have a higher incidence of PED compared to postoperative patients with a shorter duration of intubation (6). MECHANISMSTh e mechanisms of PED are multifactorial and include mechanical causes, cognitive disturbances, and residual eff ects of narcotics and anxiolytic medications (7). Mechanical causes are directly related to the duration of intubation and endotracheal tube size, since these tubes cause mucosal infl ammation leading to loss of architecture, oropharyngeal muscle atrophy from disuse during intubation, diminished proprioception, decreased laryngeal sensation, and laryngeal injury (edema, granuloma, and vocal cord paralysis) (6). Traumatic brain injury or critical illness may also cause PED by damaging peripheral and bulbar nerves, altering cognition, or causing the dysregulation of the swallowing refl ex (8). RISK FACTORSP...

The shock index is a good tool to identify patients with the potential for short-term adverse outcomes when they present with UGIB. It performs as well as other risk-scoring tools for GI bleeding and has the potential for serial use during hospitalization to identify changes in the clinical course.

No abstract

Patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding frequently require hospitalization and have a mortality rate that ranges from 6% to 14%. These patients need rapid clinical assessment to determine the urgency of endoscopy and the need for endoscopic treatment. Risk-scoring tools, such as the Rockall score and the Glasgow-Blatchford score, are commonly used in this assessment. These tools clearly help identify high-risk patients but do not necessarily have good predictive value in identifying important outcomes. Their diagnostic accuracy in identifying rebleeding and mortality ranges from poor to fair. The shock index (heart rate divided by systolic blood pressure) provides an integrated assessment of the cardiovascular status. It can be easily calculated during the initial evaluation of patients and monitoring after treatment. The shock index has been used in a few studies in patients with acute GI bleeding, including studies to determine which patients need emergency endoscopy, to predict complications after corrosive ingestions, to identify delayed hemorrhage following pancreatic surgery, and to evaluate the utility of angiograms to identify sites of GI bleeding. Not all studies have found the shock index to be useful in patients with GI bleeding, however. This may reflect the unpredictable natural history of various etiologies of GI bleeding, comorbidity that may influence blood pressure and/or heart rate, and inadequate data acquisition. The shock index needs more formal study in patients with GI bleeding admitted to medical intensive care units. Important considerations include the initial response to resuscitation, persistent bleeding following initial treatment, and rebleeding following a period of stabilization. In addition, it needs correlation with other risk-scoring tools.