4.3 Review

Impact of Dysphagia Assessment and Management on Risk of Stroke-Associated Pneumonia: A Systematic Review

期刊

CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
卷 46, 期 3-4, 页码 97-105

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000492730

关键词

Acute stroke; Dysphagia; Stroke-associated pneumonia

资金

  1. Stroke Association [SE-TSA PGF 2017/03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients with dysphagia are at an increased risk of stroke-associated pneumonia. There is wide variation in the way patients are screened and assessed during the acute phase. The aim of this review was to identify the methods of assessment and management in acute stroke that influence the risk of stroke-associated pneumonia. Studies of stroke patients that reported dysphagia screening, assessment or management and occurrence of pneumonia during acute phase stroke were screened for inclusion after electronic searches of multiple databases from inception to November 2016. The primary outcome was association with stroke-associated pneumonia. Summary: Twelve studies of 87,824 patients were included. The type of dysphagia screening protocol varied widely across and within studies. There was limited information on what comprised a specialist swallow assessment and alternative feeding was the only management strategy, which was reported for association with stroke-associated pneumonia. Use of a formal screening protocol and early dysphagia screening (EDS) and assessment by a speech and language pathologist (SLP) were associated with a reduced risk of stroke-associated pneumonia. There was marked heterogeneity between the included studies, which precluded meta-analysis. Key Messages: There is variation in the assessment and management of dysphagia in acute stroke. There is increasing evidence that EDS and specialist swallow assessment by an SLP may reduce the odds of stroke-associated pneumonia. There is the potential for other factors to influence the incidence of stroke-associated pneumonia during the acute phase.

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

4.3
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