4.5 Article

Effects of Carbonated Thickened Drinks on Pharyngeal Swallowing with a Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing in Older Patients with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia

Journal

HEALTHCARE
Volume 10, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10091769

Keywords

dysphagia; carbonated thickened drink; flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing; subjective difficulty of swallowing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to determine the efficacy of carbonated and sweetened drinks added to thickened liquids in improving dysphagia. The results showed that carbonated thickened drink was easier to swallow and may improve penetration and/or aspiration.
This study aimed to determine the efficacy of carbonated and sweetened drinks added to thickened liquids, which are routinely used for patients with dysphagia to improve dysphagia. Patients swallowed thin liquid (Thin), thickened liquid (Thick), carbonated thin drink (C-Thin), and carbonated thickened drink (C-Thick) in random order. Penetration and/or aspiration were scored using the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS). The residue was scored using the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale (YPR-SRS). Swallowing reflex initiation was scored using the Hyodo score. The subjective difficulty of swallowing was scored on a face scale. We analyzed 13 patients with a mean age of 79.6 +/- 9.6 years. PAS was significantly lower in the C-Thick group than the Thin group (p < 0.05). Swallowing reflex initiation was significantly different between the Thin and Thick (p < 0.01) groups; moreover, post hoc analysis revealed that it was significantly lower in the C-Thick group than the Thin group (p < 0.01). The subjective difficulty of swallowing in the C-Thick was significantly lower than the Thick group (p < 0.05). C-Thick was easier to swallow than Thick and may improve penetration and/or aspiration in older patients with dysphagia with complex diseases.

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