4.0 Article

Profile of oropharyngeal dysphagia patients in a teaching hospital in Northern Brazil: a descriptive cross-sectional study

期刊

出版社

ASSOC MEDICA BRASILEIRA
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.20230611

关键词

Swallowing disorders; Deglutition disorders; Public health; Epidemiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia in a teaching hospital in northern Brazil. The results showed that the majority of patients were males aged over 60, with neurological disorders and other underlying diseases.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the profile of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia in a teaching hospital in the public health system in northern Brazil.METHODS: This is a descriptive cross-sectional study. All procedures of this study were approved by the ethics committee. A convenience sample composed of participants aged >18 years, of both sexes, with any underlying pathology admitted to the medical clinic on exclusive oral feeding, alternatively enteral or gastric tube feeding (Gastrostomy), or associated by both routes, whose swallowing assessment was performed by a SpeechLanguage Pathologist. Data from the database/medical records were investigated from March 2020 to September 2021.RESULTS: The sample consisted of 44 patients diagnosed with oropharyngeal dysphagia, with a higher frequency of males (63.64%) aged over 60 years (70.45%). Almost half of the evaluated patients were diagnosed with neurological disorders (47.73%) and had dysphagia associated with other underlying diseases (31.82%). Excluding patients with neurological disorders, trauma/polytrauma, and respiratory disorders from the last group, some patients (11.36%) had two concomitant underlying diseases.CONCLUSION: According to the sample of this study, the profile of oropharyngeal dysphagia patients includes pneumonia, respiratory failure, bronchoaspiration, and the consequent need for ventilatory support.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据