Dynamic swallowing study and radiation dose to patients

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) in Screening Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) is used worldwide to screen people quickly and easily at high risk for swallowing disorders. However, the best EAT-10 cutoff value is still controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we estimated and compared the diagnostic accuracy of EAT-10 cutoff values of 2 and 3 for screening dysphagia. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WANFANG, and VIP databases from May 2008 to March 2022. The meta-analysis included 7 studies involving 1064 subjects from 7 different countries. Two studies were classified as high quality and five studies as medium quality. With an EAT-10 cutoff value of 2, using flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing or video fluoroscopic swallowing study as the gold standard, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-0.93), 0.59 (95% CI 0.39-0.77), 2.17 (95% CI 1.38-3.42), 0.19 (95% CI 0.13-0.29), and 11.49 (95% CI 5.86-22.53), respectively. When a cutoff of 3 was used, these values were 0.85 (95% CI 0.68-0.94), 0.82 (95% CI 0.65-0.92), 4.84 (95% CI 1.72-13.50), 0.18 (95% CI 0.07-0.46), and 26.24 (95% CI 5.06-135.95), respectively. Using EAT-10 cutoff values of 2 and 3, the areas under the curve were 0.873 (95% CI 0.82-0.93) and 0.903 (95% CI 0.88-0.93), respectively, showing good diagnostic performance. EAT-10 can be used as a preliminary screening tool for dysphagia. However, a cutoff of 3 is recommended for EAT-10 due to better diagnostic accuracy.

Feasibility of low-dose digital pulsed video-fluoroscopic swallow exams (VFSE): effects on radiation dose and image quality

Background Fluoroscopy is a frequently used examination in clinical routine without appropriate research evaluation latest hardware and software equipment. Purpose To evaluate the feasibility of low-dose pulsed video-fluoroscopic swallowing exams (pVFSE) to reduce dose exposure in patients with swallowing disorders compared to high-resolution radiograph examinations (hrVFSE) serving as standard of reference. Material and Methods A phantom study (Alderson-Rando Phantom, 60 thermoluminescent dosimeters [TLD]) was performed for dose measurements. Acquisition parameters were as follows: (i) pVFSE: 76.7 kV, 57 mA, 0.9 Cu mm, pulse rate/s 30; (ii) hrVFSE: 68.0 kV, 362 mA, 0.2 Cu mm, pictures 30/s. The dose area product (DAP) indicated by the detector system and the radiation dose derived from the TLD measurements were analyzed. In a patient study, image quality was assessed qualitatively (5-point Likert scale, 5 = hrVFSE; two independent readers) and quantitatively (SNR) in 35 patients who subsequently underwent contrast-enhanced pVFSE and hrVFSE. Results Phantom measurements showed a dose reduction per picture of factor 25 for pVFSE versus hrVFSE images (0.0025 mGy versus 0.062 mGy). The DAP (µGym²) was 28.0 versus 810.5 (pVFSE versus hrVFSE) for an average examination time of 30 s. Direct and scattered organ doses were significantly lower for pVFSE as compared to hrVFSE ( P < 0.05). Image quality was rated 3.9 ± 0.5 for pVFSE versus the hrVFSE standard; depiction of the contrast agent 4.8 ± 0.3; noise 3.6 ± 0.5 ( P < 0.05); SNR calculations revealed a relative decreased of 43.9% for pVFSE as compared to hrVFSE. Conclusion Pulsed VFSE is feasible, providing diagnostic image quality at a significant dose reduction as compared to hrVFSE.

Radiation exposure time during MBSS: influence of swallowing impairment severity, medical diagnosis, clinician experience, and standardized protocol use

Guidelines and preventive measures have been established to limit radiation exposure time during modified barium swallow studies (MBSS) but multiple variables may influence the duration of the exam. This study examined the influence of clinician experience, medical diagnosis category, swallowing impairment severity, and use of a standardized protocol on fluoroscopy time. A retrospective review of 739 MBSSs performed on 612 patients (342 males/270 females; age range = 18-96 years) completed in 1 year at the Medical University of South Carolina was performed with IRB approval. All studies were completed by speech-language pathologists trained in the data collection protocol, interpretation, and scoring of the MBSImP™(©). Medical diagnosis category, swallowing impairment severity (MBSImP™(©) score), clinician experience, and fluoroscopy time were the variables recorded for analysis. Fluoroscopy time was not significantly associated with medical diagnosis category (p = 0.10). The severity of the MBSImP™(©) Oral Total and Pharyngeal Total resulted in statistically significant increases in fluoroscopy time (p < 0.05). Studies by novice clinicians had longer exposure times when compared to those of experienced clinicians (p = 0.037). Average radiation exposure time using the MBSImP™(©) approach was 2.9 min, with a 95 % confidence interval of 2.8-3.0 min, which was well within the range of exposure times reported in the literature. This study provides preliminary information regarding the impact of medical diagnosis category, swallowing impairment severity, and clinician experience on fluoroscopy time. These findings also suggest that a thorough, standardized protocol for MBSSs did not cause unnecessary radiation exposure time during the MBSS.