4.3 Article

Preliminary Investigation of the Effect of Pulse Rate on Judgments of Swallowing Impairment and Treatment Recommendations

Journal

DYSPHAGIA
Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 528-538

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00455-013-9463-z

Keywords

Dysphagia; Modified barium swallow study; MBSImP (TM)(c); Pulse rate; Radiation exposure

Funding

  1. NIH/NIDCD [K23 DC005764-05]
  2. NIH/NCRR [KL2 UL1 RR029880]
  3. Bracco Diagnostics (NIH/NIDCD) [K24 DC012801]
  4. Evelyn Trammell Voice and Swallowing Institute
  5. Northern Speech Services

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reducing fluoroscopic pulse rate, a method used to reduce radiation exposure from modified barium swallow studies (MBSSs), decreases the number of images available from which to judge swallowing impairment. It is necessary to understand the impact of pulse rate reduction on judgments of swallowing impairment and, consequentially, treatment recommendations. This preliminary study explored differences in standardized MBSS measurements [Modified Barium Swallow Impairment Profile (MBSImP (TM) A (c)) and Penetration Aspiration Scale (PAS) Scores] between two pulse rates: 30 and simulated 15 pulses per second (pps). Two reliable speech-language pathologists (SLPs) scored all five MBSSs. Five SLPs reported treatment recommendations based on those scores. Differences in judgments of swallowing impairment were found between 30 and simulated 15 pps in all five MBSSs. These differences were in six physiological swallowing components: initiation of pharyngeal swallow, anterior hyoid excursion, epiglottic movement, pharyngeal contraction, pharyngeal-esophageal segment opening, and tongue base retraction. Differences in treatment recommendations were found between 30 and simulated 15 pps in all five MBSSs. These findings suggest that there are differences in both judgment of swallowing impairment and treatment recommendations when pulse rates are reduced from 30 to 15 pps to minimize radiation exposure.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available