2018
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

What is the value of fibre-endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) in neurological patients? A cross-sectional hospital-based registry study

Abstract: ObjectivesFibre-endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) to detect dysphagia is gaining more and more importance as a diagnostic tool. Therefore, we have investigated the impact of FEES in neurological patients in a clinical setting.DesignCross-sectional hospital-based registry.SettingPrimary acute care in a neurological department of a German university hospital.Participants241patients with various neurological diseases who underwent FEES procedure.Primary and secondary outcome measuresDysphagia and related… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
20
0
4

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
20
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…8 patients (5.3%) died during hospitalisation; all of them suffered from dysphagia. NIHSS and mRS on admission and at discharge were higher in dysphagic patients than non-dysphagic patients (admission: median NIHSS 11 [IQR 6–17] vs 7 [412], p = .013; median mRS 5 [IQR 4–5] vs. 4 [IQR 3–5], p = .012; discharge: median NIHSS 7 [IQR 4–12] vs 6 [311], p = .05; median mRS 4 [IQR 3–5] vs. 4 [IQR 2–4], p = .002). The outcome at discharge (mRS) in relation to the FEDSS is summarized in Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…8 patients (5.3%) died during hospitalisation; all of them suffered from dysphagia. NIHSS and mRS on admission and at discharge were higher in dysphagic patients than non-dysphagic patients (admission: median NIHSS 11 [IQR 6–17] vs 7 [412], p = .013; median mRS 5 [IQR 4–5] vs. 4 [IQR 3–5], p = .012; discharge: median NIHSS 7 [IQR 4–12] vs 6 [311], p = .05; median mRS 4 [IQR 3–5] vs. 4 [IQR 2–4], p = .002). The outcome at discharge (mRS) in relation to the FEDSS is summarized in Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We recently published a paper on the use of FEES and adjusting the oral diet in neurological patients. In this analysis, we were able to demonstrate a lower rate of pneumonia an a lower mortality, when adjusting the oral diet [12]. This is a subgroup analysis for acute stroke patients.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, we used FEES to investigate the swallowing function. FEES is one of the gold standards, and has high sensitivity and specificity to detect mild problems or non‐overt abnormalities such as small amounts of residue in the pharynx or silent aspiration 20‐23 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Fibre‐optic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), one of clinical standards for dysphagia diagnosis, 20‐22 can be performed at the bedside and even in unconsciousness or ventilator patients, and without radiation exposure. The follow‐up examination can also be investigated within a short period 23,24 . FEES visualises the pharyngeal and laryngeal anatomical structure and function.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…FEES being the method of first choice is easy to use, with bedside evaluation, and can help remove misjudgment in dysphagia diagnosis and help revise diet in around 70% cases. 14 To assess swallowing reflex, the integrity of the Oropharyngeal-cortical afferent pathways can be assessed by electroencephalography (EEG) while generating sensory-evoked potentials by pharyngeal electrical stimulation and the Corticalpharyngeal efferent pathways can be considered by electromyography through motor-evoked potentials by transcranial magnetic stimulation. 15 When tracheostomy tube is in place, swallowing can be assessed by oral motor and vocal cord assessment with adduction of vocal cord by phonation and strength of cough reflex and Pharyngeal assessment with per oral trials.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%