Search

Objectives/Hypothesis: We aimed to investigate whether the type of dysphagia examination (fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing [FEES] or videofluoroscopy) influences the scoring of penetration and aspiration. Study Design: Prospective, single-blind study. Methods: Fifteen dysphagic participants were recruited and underwent one FEES and one videofluoroscopy examination, performed and recorded simultaneously. Fifteen independent raters from 12 centers scored penetration and aspiration from recordings using the Penetration Aspiration Scale. Raters were blind to participant details, the pairing of the FEES and videofluoroscopy recordings, and the other raters' scores. Interrater and intrarater reliability were analyzed using weighted kappa. Results: The Penetration Aspiration Scale scores were significantly higher for the FEES recordings than for the videofluoroscopy recordings (ANOVA P < .001). The mean difference between the FEES and videofluoroscopy penetration aspiration scores for the same swallows was 1.15 points. Interrater and intrarater reliability ranged from 0.64 to 0.79 (weighted kappa). Conclusions: Penetration aspiration is perceived to be greater (more severe) from FEES than videofluoroscopy images. The clinical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In September 2008, an article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association criticizing current dysphagia assessment and management practices performed by speech-language pathologists in Long-Term Care (LTC) settings. In the same issue, an editorial invited dialogue on the points raised by Campbell-Taylor. We are responding to this call for dialogue. We find Campbell-Taylor''s interpretation of the literature to be incomplete and one-sided, leading to misleading and pessimistic conclusions. We offer a complementary perspective to balance this discussion on the 4 specific questions raised: (1) Is the use of videofluoroscopy warranted for evaluating dysphagia in the LTC population? (2) How effective are thickened liquids and other interventions for preventing aspiration and do they contribute to reduction of morbidity? (3) Can aspiration be prevented and is its prevention important? and (4) Is there sufficient evidence to justify dysphagia intervention by speech language pathologists? [Copyright &y& Elsevier]