| Literature DB >> 34617311 |
Carlos A Reyes-Torres1, Adriana Flores-López1, Iván A Osuna-Padilla2, Carmen M Hernández-Cárdenas2, Aurora E Serralde-Zúñiga1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the prevalence of post-extubation dysphagia and associated factors in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) . Our study assessed the prevalence of post-extubation dysphagia and body composition in patients with COVID-19 discharged from an intensive care unit (ICU).Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; bioelectrical impedance; dysphagia; intensive care unit; mechanical ventilation; overhydration; phase angle
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34617311 PMCID: PMC8661566 DOI: 10.1002/ncp.10781
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr Clin Pract ISSN: 0884-5336 Impact factor: 3.204
Demographics and clinical characteristics of study patients at extubation time
| Total, n = 112 | Dysphagia group, n = 46 | Nondysphagia group, n = 66 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||||
| Males, n (%) | 92 (82) | 36 (78) | 56 (85) | .37 |
| Age, years | 54 ± 12 | 58 ± 11 | 50 ± 11 | <.001 |
| Comorbidities, n (%) | ||||
| Diabetes mellitus | 51 (46) | 22 (48) | 29 (43) | .68 |
| Hypertension | 49 (44) | 19 (41) | 30 (46) | .66 |
| Obesity | 35 (30) | 14 (34) | 20 (33) | .89 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 3 (3) | 2 (3) | 3 (3) | .73 |
| Clinical variables | ||||
| MV, | 20 ± 9 | 28 ± 20 | 14 ± 8 | <.001 |
| Tracheal cannula placement, n (%) | 17 (15) | 16 (35) | 1 (2) | <.001 |
| Weight at admission, | 86 ± 21 | 84 ± 24 | 88 ± 17 | .53 |
| Height, | 164 ± 9 | 163 ± 10 | 166 ± 9 | .28 |
| BMI, | 29 ± 5.9 | 30 ± 6.8 | 29 ± 6.2 | .66 |
| Weight at extubation, | 79 ± 19 | 78 ± 21 | 80 ± 17 | .66 |
| Weight loss, | 8 ± 5.9 | 7 ± 5.2 | 9 ± 6.5 | .91 |
| BIA measurements | ||||
| PhA, | 4.8 ± 1.1 | 4.0 ± 0.96 | 5.2 ± 0.93 | <.001 |
| ECW/TBW | 0.395 ± 0.138 | 0.402 ± 0.014 | 0.389 ± 0.010 | <.001 |
Abbreviations: BIA, bioelectrical impedance analysis; BMI, body mass index; ECW/TBW, extracellular water/total body water ratio; MV, mechanical ventilation; PhA, 50‐kHz phase angle.
Proportions were compared by using the chi‐squared test.
A t‐test was used for comparisons between groups.
FIGURE 1Segmental water ratios (A) and phase angle (PhA) (B) in patients with and without dysphagia. Patients without dysphagia (WOD) had better hydration and PhA in all the segments compared with patients with dysphagia (WD). Segmental body water and PhA differ between patients WD or WOD, and upper extremities had less overhydration than the trunk and lower extremities. *P < .05, **P < .01, and ***P < .001. ECW/TBW, extracellular water/total body water ratio
Factors associated with dysphagia
| Bivariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| Age (>60 years) | 2.6 | 1.2–5.9 | ||
| MV (days) | 12.4 | 3.4–45.9 | ||
| LOS (days) | 5.7 | 1.2–27.8 | ||
| PhA (<4.8°) | 15.2 | 5.6–41.4 | 12.2 | 4.3–34.1 |
| Overhydration | 18.0 | 5.4–60.8 | 9.1 | 3.4–24.5 |
Abbreviations: LOS, length of stay; MV, mechanical ventilation; PhA, phase angle.
Significant P‐value < .05.
Multivariate analysis adjusted by sex and age.
FIGURE 2Phase angle (PhA) related to the length of stay and restitution of oral intake. The black line represents those with a PhA lower than 4.8°, whereas the gray line represents those with a PhA over 4.8°