4.2 Article

Characteristics of Early Oropharyngeal Dysphagia in Patients with Multiple System Atrophy

期刊

NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES
卷 18, 期 2-3, 页码 84-+

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000487800

关键词

Multiple system atrophy; Dysphagia; Deglutition; Neurodegenerative diseases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: Dysphagia, a symptom of multiple system atrophy (MSA), is a major clinical concern. In this study, we investigate the characteristics of early oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) in patients with MSA, and the differences between MSA subtypes. Methods: Patients enrolled in the study had previously been diagnosed with MSA at the clinic of the Department of Neurology, and had been referred for a videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS), between 2005 and 2014, to check for dysphagia. The clinical characteristics and VFSS findings were analyzed and compared between the MSA subtypes. Results: This study enrolled 59 patients with MSA (24 men; 31 with MSA-P, 21 with MSA-C, and 7 with MSA-PC). Dysphagia symptoms were mostly limited to aspiration symptoms (90.48%) in patients with MSA-C, while difficulty in swallowing, increased mealtime, and drooling were frequent in those with MSA-P. The most common VFSS finding amongst patients was vallecular residue (n = 53, 89.8%), followed by penetration/aspiration (n = 40,67.8%), and coating of the pharyngeal wall (n = 39, 66.1%). Comparison analysis between subtypes showed that apraxia and vallecular residue were more frequent and severe in MSA-P than in MSA-C (p = 0.033 and p = 0.010, respectively). Conclusion: Understanding early OD characteristics in patients with MSA and the differences between MSA subtypes could be helpful in managing dysphagia in patients with MSA. Several dysphagia symptoms similar to those of Parkinson disease were frequently observed in MSA-P, but not in MSA-C. A follow-up study is needed to elucidate the natural course of OD in MSA patients and the difference between MSA subtypes. (C) 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.2
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