Literature DB >> 35182246

Accuracy of High-Resolution Pharyngeal Manometry Metrics for Predicting Aspiration and Residue in Oropharyngeal Dysphagia Patients with Poor Pharyngeal Contractility.

Howell Henrian G Bayona1,2, Nicole Pizzorni3, Jan Tack4,5, Ann Goeleven1,6, Taher Omari7, Nathalie Rommel8,9,10.   

Abstract

Several physiological metrics can be derived from pharyngeal high-resolution impedance manometry (HRPM), but their clinical relevance has not been well established. We investigated the diagnostic performance of these metrics in relation to videofluoroscopic (VFS) assessment of aspiration and residue in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. We analyzed 263 swallows from 72 adult patients (22-91 years) with diverse medical conditions. Metrics of contractility, upper esophageal sphincter (UES) opening and relaxation, flow timing, intrabolus distension pressure, and a global Swallow Risk Index (SRI) were derived from pressure-impedance recordings using pressure-flow analysis. VFS data were independently scored for airway invasion and pharyngeal residue using the Penetration-Aspiration Scale and the Normalized Residue Ratio Scale, respectively. We performed multivariate logistic regression analyses to determine the relationship of HRPM metrics with radiological outcomes and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to evaluate their diagnostic accuracy. We identified aspiration in 25% and pharyngeal residue in 84% of the swallows. Aspiration was independently associated with hypopharyngeal peak pressure < 65 mmHg (HypoPeakP) [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 5.27; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) (0.99-28.1); p = 0.051], SRI > 15 [OR 4.37; 95% CI (1.87-10.2); p < 0.001] and proximal esophageal contractile integral (PCI) < 55 mmHg·cm·s [OR 2.30; 95% CI (1.07-4.96); p = 0.034]. Pyriform sinus residue was independently predicted by HypoPeakP < 65 mmHg [OR 7.32; 95% CI (1.93-27.7); p = 0.003], UES integrated relaxation pressure (UES-IRP) > 3 mmHg [OR 2.96; 95% CI (1.49-5.88); p = 0.002], and SRI > 15 [OR 2.17; 95% CI (1.04-4.51); p = 0.039]. Area under ROC curve (AUC) values for individual HRPM metrics ranged from 0.59 to 0.74. Optimal cut-off values were identified. This study demonstrates the diagnostic value of certain proposed and adjunct HRPM metrics for identifying signs of unsafe and inefficient bolus transport in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aspiration; Deglutition; Deglutition disorders; Diagnostic accuracy; High-resolution pharyngeal manometry; Oropharyngeal dysphagia; Videofluoroscopy

Year:  2022        PMID: 35182246     DOI: 10.1007/s00455-022-10417-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dysphagia        ISSN: 0179-051X            Impact factor:   3.438


  29 in total

1.  Inter- and intrajudge reliability for videofluoroscopic swallowing evaluation measures.

Authors:  G H McCullough; R T Wertz; J C Rosenbek; R H Mills; W G Webb; K B Ross
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 3.438

Review 2.  Intrarater and interrater reliability for measurements in videofluoroscopy of swallowing.

Authors:  Laura Baijens; Ali Barikroo; Walmari Pilz
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2013-06-15       Impact factor: 3.528

Review 3.  Expanding Instrumental Options for Dysphagia Diagnosis and Research: Ultrasound and Manometry.

Authors:  Maggie-Lee Huckabee; Phoebe Macrae; Kristin Lamvik
Journal:  Folia Phoniatr Logop       Date:  2016-05-03       Impact factor: 0.849

4.  Combined pharyngeal impedance-manometry: has it finally come of age?

Authors:  Ian J Cook
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2011-06-30       Impact factor: 11.382

5.  Psychometric Properties of Visuoperceptual Measures of Videofluoroscopic and Fibre-Endoscopic Evaluations of Swallowing: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Katina Swan; Reinie Cordier; Ted Brown; Renée Speyer
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2018-07-17       Impact factor: 3.438

Review 6.  Dysphagia: current reality and scope of the problem.

Authors:  Pere Clavé; Reza Shaker
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-04-07       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 7.  Oropharyngeal dysphagia: manifestations and diagnosis.

Authors:  Nathalie Rommel; Shaheen Hamdy
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-12-02       Impact factor: 46.802

8.  Automated analysis of pharyngeal pressure data obtained with high-resolution manometry.

Authors:  Jason D Mielens; Matthew R Hoffman; Michelle R Ciucci; Jack J Jiang; Timothy M McCulloch
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2010-12-14       Impact factor: 3.438

9.  Social and psychological burden of dysphagia: its impact on diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Olle Ekberg; Shaheen Hamdy; Virginie Woisard; Anita Wuttge-Hannig; Primitivo Ortega
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 3.438

10.  Incidence of brain metastasis from esophageal cancer.

Authors:  G Welch; H J Ross; N P Patel; D E Jaroszewski; D E Fleischer; W G Rule; H R Paripati; F C Ramirez; J B Ashman
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 3.429

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.