In-Office Evaluation and Management of Dysphagia

Age-defying swallowing

Swallowing disorders, which are generally underdiagnosed, affect the elderly, leading to a decreased quality of life and complications, including aspiration pneumonia and death. Understanding the neurophysiology of swallowing and the causes of its dysfunction is a fundamental tool for the prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment of dysphagia. New technologies open a wide range of possibilities for the implementation of new care protocols for this disorder.

A Modified Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing Evaluating Esophageal Dysphagia by a Capsule: A Pilot Study

While functional endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is the most useful diagnostic test for the evaluation of dysphagia, it cannot evaluate the esophageal phase of swallowing. To evaluate if a modification for the FEES exam by swallowing an empty capsule and screening of the upper esophagus could be used for early detection of esophageal dysphagia. A prospective, single-center, pilot study. At the end of a standard FEES exam, the patients were asked to swallow an empty capsule. Fifteen seconds later, the endoscope was inserted into the upper esophagus. A pathological capsule test was defined when the capsule was seen in the esophagus. In such cases, the patient was advised to undergo a gastroscopy, MBS, or esophageal manometry, which were compared to the results of the capsule test. The capsule test was utilized in 109 patients. A pathological capsule test was found in 55 patients (57.8%). In 48 patients (87.3%), an isolated or combined esophageal dysphagia was seen. The accuracy value of the capsule test compared to gastroenterology tests was 83.3%, sensitivity 88.46%, specificity 75%, PPV 85%, and NPV 80%. A modification of the standard FEES exam by including an empty capsule swallow test with an upper esophagus examination may provide a useful screening tool for esophageal dysphagia.

Which Provider Specialties are Performing Diagnostic Procedures for Dysphagia in the United States?

OBJECTIVE

Care of patients with dysphagia occurs at the intersection of several different medical specialties. Otolaryngologists are uniquely equipped to diagnose dysphagia given their specialized training, yet the extent to which otolaryngologists perform diagnostic procedures for dysphagia is unknown. The objective of this study was to characterize the specialty-level variation among providers performing diagnostic assessments for dysphagia.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of dysphagia care utilization among Medicare beneficiaries from 2013 to 2021 using the CMS Physician & Other Practitioners by Provider and Service dataset. American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) data reports were used to determine the total number of providers per specialty. For each procedure and specialty, the percentage of providers performing >10 procedures annually and the average annual number of procedures per performing provider (non-radiology) were calculated.

RESULTS

We analyzed nine common dysphagia diagnostic procedures, including manometry, 24-h pH testing, flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), and modified barium swallow study (MBSS). Mean 3.7 (SD 1.4) otolaryngologists (0.04% of practicing) performed manometry testing annually, compared to 493 (69.3) gastroenterologists (3.3%). Less than 1% of practicing otolaryngologists (37.8 (8.0) (0.04%)) and gastroenterologists (51.6 (8.4), 0.35%) performed 24-h pH testing annually. FEES testing was most commonly performed by otolaryngologists; however, only 48 (6.3) providers (0.51% of practicing) performed these procedures annually. For MBSS, fewer otolaryngologists (5.2 (1.0), 0.05%) perform these assessments than other medical specialties. Each otolaryngologist performed 110.7 (52.5) studies annually, compared to 200.1 (68.0) per gastroenterologist.

CONCLUSION

Otolaryngologists represent a small fraction of providers performing dysphagia-related diagnostic procedures despite a unique training within our specialty to comprehensively diagnose and manage this condition.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 134:3698-3705, 2024.

Clinical validation of the nursing outcome "Swallowing status: pharyngeal phase" in patients with laryngeal cancer

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to clinically validate the nursing outcome "Swallowing status: pharyngeal phase" (1013).

METHODS

A two-stage study was designed: (1) Chinese translation and cultural adaptation and (2) clinical validation. Internal consistency and interrater reliability tests were performed on 285 patients with laryngeal cancer, and an additional 130 patients were randomly selected from the 285 patients as an independent sample. Criterion-related validity tests were performed using the standardized swallowing assessment (SSA). Nursing outcome sensitivity was detected by scoring two time points.

RESULTS

The Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.951 for the nursing outcome and 0.942-0.965 for each indicator. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values for each indicator ranged from 0.73 to 0.929. The scores of the nursing outcome were negatively correlated with the SSA scores (r = -0.555, p < 0.01). With the exception of two indicators, there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the total scores of the scale and its 11 indicator scores for the two time points. The results indicated that the nursing outcome "Swallowing status: pharyngeal phase" (1013) exhibited satisfactory psychometric properties and high sensitivity to change.

CONCLUSIONS

The nursing outcome "Swallowing status: pharyngeal phase" (1013) demonstrated good reliability, validity, and sensitivity in patients with laryngeal cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The nursing outcome "Swallowing status: pharyngeal phase" (1013) can be used to assess swallowing function in patients with laryngeal cancer and provide guidance for the development of rehabilitation intervention plans and nursing care.

Transnasal endoscopy: moving from endoscopy to the clinical outpatient-blue sky thinking in oesophageal testing

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has severely affected UK endoscopy services with an estimate 86% loss of activity during the first wave. Subsequent delays in diagnostic and surveillance procedures highlight the need for novel solutions to tackle the resultant backlog. Transnasal endoscopy (TNE) provides an attractive option compared with conventional upper gastrointestinal endoscopy given its limited use of space, no sedation and reduced nursing resources.

OUR EXPERIENCE

We describe piloting and then establishing an outpatient model TNE service in the pandemic era and the implications on resource allocation, training and workforce. We also discuss our experiences and outline ways in which services can evolve to undertake more complex endoscopic diagnostic and therapeutic work. Over 90% of patients describe no discomfort and those who have previously experienced conventional transoral endoscopy preferred the transnasal approach. We describe a low complication rate (0.8%) comprising two episodes of mild epistaxis. The average procedure duration was reasonable (9.9±5.0 min) with full adherence to Joint Advisory Group quality standards. All biopsies assessed were deemed sufficient for diagnosis including those for surveillance procedures.

DISCUSSION

TNE can offer a safe, tolerable, high-quality service outside of a conventional endoscopy setting. Expanding procedural capacity without impacting on the current endoscopy footprint has great potential in recovering endoscopy services following the COVID-19 pandemic. Looking forward, TNE has potential to be used both within the endoscopy suite as part of therapeutic procedures, or outside of the endoscopy unit in outpatient clinics, community hospitals, or mobile units and to achieve this in a more sustainable and environmentally friendly way.