Litcius/Paper detail

Pharyngeal electrical stimulation for neurogenic dysphagia following stroke, traumatic brain injury or other causes: Main results from the PHADER cohort study

Philip M. Bath, Lisa J Woodhouse, Sonja Suntrup‐Krueger, Rudolf Likar, Markus Koestenberger, Anushka Warusevitane, Juergen Herzog, Michael Schuttler, Suzanne Ragab, Lisa F. Everton, Christian Ledl, Ernst Walther, Leopold Saltuari, Elke Pucks‐Faes, Christof Bocksrucker, Milan R. Voško, Johanna de Broux, Claus G. Haase, Alicja Raginis‐Zborowska, Satish Mistry, Shaheen Hamdy, Rainer Dziewas

2020EClinicalMedicine54 citationsDOIOpen Access PDF

Abstract

BackgroundNeurogenic dysphagia is common and has no definitive treatment. We assessed whether pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) is associated with reduced dysphagia.MethodsThe PHAryngeal electrical stimulation for treatment of neurogenic Dysphagia European Registry (PHADER) was a prospective single-arm observational cohort study. Participants were recruited with neurogenic dysphagia (comprising five groups – stroke not needing ventilation; stroke needing ventilation; ventilation acquired; traumatic brain injury; other neurological causes). PES was administered once daily for three days. The primary outcome was the validated dysphagia severity rating scale (DSRS, score best-worst 0–12) at 3 months.FindingsOf 255 enrolled patients from 14 centres in Austria, Germany and UK, 10 failed screening. At baseline, mean (standard deviation) or median [interquartile range]: age 68 (14) years, male 71%, DSRS 11·4 (1·7), time from onset to treatment 32 [44] days; age, time and DSRS differed between diagnostic groups. Insertion of PES catheters was successfully inserted in 239/245 (98%) participants, and was typically easy taking 11·8 min. 9 participants withdrew before the end of treatment. DSRS improved significantly in all dysphagia groups, difference in means (95% confidence intervals, CI) from 0 to 3 months: stroke (n = 79) –6·7 (–7·8, –5·5), ventilated stroke (n = 98) –6·5 (–7·6, –5·5); ventilation acquired (n = 35) –6·6 (–8·4, –4·8); traumatic brain injury (n = 24) -4·5 (–6·6, –2·4). The results for DSRS were mirrored for instrumentally assessed penetration aspiration scale scores. DSRS improved in both supratentorial and infratentorial stroke, with no difference between them (p = 0·32). In previously ventilated participants with tracheotomy, DSRS improved more in participants who could be decannulated (n = 66) –7·5 (–8·6, –6·5) versus not decannulated (n = 33) –2·1 (–3·2, –1·0) (p<0·001). 74 serious adverse events (SAE) occurred in 60 participants with pneumonia (9·2%) the most frequent SAE.InterpretationIn patients with neurogenic dysphagia, PES was safe and associated with reduced measures of dysphagia and penetration/aspiration.FundingPhagenesis Ltd.

Topics & Concepts

MedicineDysphagiaStroke (engine)Interquartile rangeProspective cohort studyTraumatic brain injurySurgeryAnesthesiaEngineeringMechanical engineeringPsychiatryDysphagia Assessment and ManagementGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsVoice and Speech Disorders
Pharyngeal electrical stimulation for neurogenic dysphagia following stroke, traumatic brain injury or other causes: Main results from the PHADER cohort study | Litcius