| Literature DB >> 32993523 |
Keiji Takata1, Kentaro Oniki2, Yuki Tateyama3, Hiroki Yasuda4, Miu Yokota1, Sae Yamauchi5, Norio Sugawara6,7, Norio Yasui-Furukori6, Junji Saruwatari8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several medications, such as anticholinergics, are considered to affect the swallowing function adversely; however, whether or not anticholinergics or polypharmacy should be avoided to prevent eating dysfunction in elderly populations remains unclear. We therefore examined whether or not the number of medications or the use of anticholinergics was associated with recovery from tubal feeding in elderly inpatients.Entities:
Keywords: Anticholinergics; Dysphagia; Multiple medicines; Polypharmacy; Tubal feeding
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32993523 PMCID: PMC7526129 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-020-01778-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Characteristics of the subjects at the baseline
| All subjects | Recovery group | Non-recovery group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | (recovery vs. non-recovery groups) | |
| Sex (men/women) | 34/61 | 13/23 | 21/38 | 1.000 |
| Age (years) | 84 (61–98) | 81.5 (62–96) | 86 (61–98) | 0.069 |
| Number of prescribed medications | 5 (0–16) | 5 (0–14) | 6 (0–16) | 0.401 |
| ACBs | 1 (0–6) | 0 (0–6) | 1 (0–4) | 0.654 |
| Route of tubal feeding (nasal/gastrostomy) | 62/33 | 26/10 | 36/23 | 0.375 |
| Cerebrovascular disease | 71 (74.7%) | 28 (77.8%) | 43 (72.9%) | 0.635 |
| Wasting syndrome | 39 (41.1%) | 16 (44.4%) | 23 (39.0%) | 0.669 |
| Parkinson’s disease | 10 (10.5%) | 2 (5.6%) | 8 (13.6%) | 0.310 |
| Barthel index | ||||
| 0–20 | 92 (96.8%) | 34 (94.4%) | 58 (98.3%) | 0.141 |
| 21–40 | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.7%) | |
| > 40 | 2 (2.1%) | 2 (5.6%) | 0 (0%) | |
| HDS-R | ||||
| 0–10 | 84 (88.4%) | 28 (77.8%) | 56 (94.9%) | 0.068 |
| 11–20 | 7 (7.4%) | 6 (16.7%) | 1 (1.7%) | |
| > 20 | 4 (4.2%) | 2 (5.6%) | 2 (3.4%) | |
The data are presented as the median [range] or number (%)
ACBs Anticholinergic cognitive burden scale, HDS-R Hasegawa dementia rating scale-revised
The recovery group represents the patients who recovered from tubal to oral feeding for all three meals per day during the observation period
Fig. 1The changes in the number of prescribed medications and the ACBs. The P values were calculated by the Mann-Whitney U test. *P = 0.011, †P = 0.035. ACBs, Anticholinergic cognitive burden scale; SE, standard error
The associations of recovery to oral feeding with prescribed medications or ACBs
| Recovery to oral feeding | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logistic regression analysis | Bootstrap analysis | |||
| Adjusted OR (95% CI) | 95% CI | |||
| Model 1: | ||||
| The number of prescribed medications at the endpoint minus that at the baseline | 0.66 (0.50–0.87) a | 0.003 | 0.41–0.84 | 0.002 |
| Model 2: | ||||
| The ACBs at the endpoint minus that at the baseline | 0.52 (0.29–0.92) b | 0.024 | 0.18–0.97 | 0.033 |
OR Odds ratio, CI Confidence interval, ACBs Anticholinergic cognitive burden scale, HDS-R Hasegawa dementia rating scale-revised
a Adjusted for age, sex, gastrostomy tube, cerebrovascular disease, wasting syndrome, Parkinson’s disease, HDS-R and the number of prescribed medications at the baseline
b Adjusted for age, sex, gastrostomy tube, cerebrovascular disease, wasting syndrome, Parkinson’s disease, HDS-R, the number of prescribed medications at the baseline and the ACBs at the baseline
Fig. 2The prevalence of tubal feeding and prescribed medications or ACBs. The Kaplan-Meier curves indicate the incidence of recovery to oral feeding according to the changes in the number of medications or the ACBs. P values were calculated by the log-rank test. ACBs, Anticholinergic cognitive burden scale
The incidence of recovery to oral feeding and prescribed medications or ACBs
| Incidence of recovery to oral feeding | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cox regression analysis | Bootstrap analysis | |||
| Adjusted HR (95% CI) | 95% CI | |||
| Model 1: | ||||
| No adding prescribed medication | 1 | |||
| Adding prescribed medication (s) | 0.65 (0.31–1.39) a | 0.269 | 0.23–1.65 | 0.333 |
| Model 2: | ||||
| No adding 3 or more prescribed medication | 1 | |||
| Adding 3 or more prescribed medications | 0.08 (0.01–0.59) a | 0.014 | 0.03–0.42 | 0.024 |
| Model 3: | ||||
| No increase in ACBs | 1 | |||
| Increase in ACBs | 0.36 (0.14–0.93) b | 0.035 | 0.07–1.14 | 0.083 |
HR, hazard ratio, CI Confidence interval, ACBs Anticholinergic cognitive burden scale, HDS-R Hasegawa dementia rating scale-revised
a Adjusted for age, sex, gastrostomy tube, cerebrovascular disease, wasting syndrome, Parkinson’s disease, HDS-R and the number of prescribed medications at the baseline
b Adjusted for age, sex, gastrostomy tube, cerebrovascular disease, wasting syndrome, Parkinson’s disease, HDS-R, the number of prescribed medications at the baseline and the ACBs at the baseline
Fig. 3The prevalence of tubal feeding and an additional ≥3 medications. The Kaplan-Meier curve indicates the incidence of recovery from tubal to oral feeding in the subjects who were given an additional ≥3 medications during the observation period and in those who were not. P values were calculated by log-rank test
Fig. 4The prevalence of hospitalization and an additional ≥3 medications. The Kaplan-Meier curve indicates the incidence of discharge from hospital in the subjects who were given an additional ≥3 medications during the observation period and in those who were not. P values were calculated by log-rank test
The incidence of discharge from the hospital and adding ≥3 prescribed medications
| Incidence of recovery to oral feeding | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cox regression analysis | Bootstrap analysis | |||
| Adjusted HR (95% CI) | 95% CI | |||
| No adding 3 or more prescribed medication | 1 | |||
| Adding 3 or more prescribed medications | 0.33 (0.14–0.80) a | 0.014 | 0.07–0.92 | 0.032 |
HR Hazard ratio, CI Confidence interval, ACBs Anticholinergic cognitive burden scale, HDS-R Hasegawa dementia rating scale-revised
a Adjusted for age, sex, gastrostomy tube, cerebrovascular disease, wasting syndrome, Parkinson’s disease, HDS-R and the number of prescribed medications at the baseline
Fig. 5The structural equation modeling diagram regarding the recovery to oral feeding. Lines with numbers indicate significant paths with standardized partial regression (β) coefficients (*P < 0.05). Arrows indicate an association between two factors. The β values ranged from − 1 to 1, with a positive value representing a positive correlation and a negative value representing a negative correlation. ACBs, anticholinergic cognitive burden scale; HDS-R, Hasegawa dementia rating scale-revised