4.5 Article

Handgrip Strength and Dysphagia Assessment Following Cardiac Surgery

Journal

LARYNGOSCOPE
Volume 125, Issue 10, Pages 2330-2332

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/lary.25175

Keywords

Dysphagia; frailty; intubation; handgrip

Funding

  1. Department of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives/Hypothesis: Prolonged intubation has been recognized as a risk factor for dysphagia following cardiac surgery. We conducted a study to determine whether those patients intubated longer than 12 hours following cardiac surgery exhibit low handgrip strength and if dysphagia is prevalent in those with low handgrip strength. Study Design: Feasibility study. Methods: Patients intubated more than 12 hours after cardiac surgery were enrolled. Handgrip strength was measured. If subjects were found to have low grip strength they underwent clinical swallowing exam by a speech-language pathologist followed by modified barium swallow (MBS) to assess for dysphagia. Severity of dysphagia was assessed with the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) and need for diet modification. Results: Eighty-six percent (12/14) of patients tested had low handgrip strength. Eight patients with low grip strength completed the bedside swallowing exam and MBS. Four of the eight patients (50%) had deep laryngeal penetration (PAS scores 4-5) on MBS and three (38%) patients were found to have silent aspiration (PAS 8). The findings on MBS resulted in the recommendation of a swallowing strategy and/or modified diet for six of the eight (80%) patients. Nonoral feedings were recommended for two patients (25%) based on MBS results. Conclusions: A majority of patients intubated >12 hours after cardiac surgery exhibit low handgrip strength. Dysphagia is prevalent among those with low handgrip strength. The role of frailty measures in screening for dysphagia deserves further investigation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available