Pharyngeal Residues Scoring through the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale (YPRSRS): Efficacy of Training.

The assessment of pharyngeal residues during fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is based on visual-perceptual scales that involve clinical subjectivity. Training might be helpful to increase agreement among clinicians. This paper aims to assess the efficacy of training for the assessment of pharyngeal residue in FEES frames and videos through the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale (YPRSRS). Twenty-nine clinicians (Phoniatricians, Otorhinolaryngologists, Speech and Language Pathologists) and 47 students in Speech and Language Pathology participated in this study. Fourteen clinicians were randomly allocated to the training group, whilst the remaining 15 served as a control group; all the students participated in the training. Participants scored 30 pairs of videos and frames using the YPRSRS twice, before and after the training for the training groups and at least two weeks apart for the control group. Construct validity, defined as the agreement between each rater and the experts' scores, and inter-rater reliability were compared among the groups and between the first and the second assessments to verify the efficacy of the training. Construct validity significantly improved at the second assessment in the training group for the pyriform sinuses videos (baseline 0.71 ± 0.04, post-training 0.82 ± 0.05, p = .049) and in the students' group for the valleculae (baseline 0.64 ± 0.02, post-training 0.84 ± 0.02, p < .001) and pyriform sinuses videos (baseline 0.55 ± 0.03, post-training 0.77 ± 0.02, p < .05). No significant differences were found in the inter-rater reliability in any group. In conclusion, the training seems to improve participants' agreement with experts in scoring the YPRSRS in FEES videos.

Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) in pediatrics: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the state-of-art regarding the use of fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) in pediatrics, specifically investigating FEES feasibility, safety, diagnostic accuracy, and protocols. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched for original studies on the pediatric population that instrumentally assessed swallowing function using FEES. A hand-search of the references of included studies was performed. Data on the population, feasibility of endoscope insertion and bolus trials, adverse events, sensitivity and specificity, and FEES equipment and protocol were extracted. The quality of the studies was assessed using the checklists of the Johanna Briggs Institute. Selection of the studies, data extraction, and quality appraisal were conducted by two independent researchers. RESULTS: Eighty-two reports from 81 studies were included. The mean overall quality of the studies was 80 % (17-100 %). The feasibility of endoscope insertion was high (89%-100 %), while the feasibility of bolus trials varied from 40 % to 100 %. Adverse events were excessive crying (8 studies), irritability or agitation (4 studies), transitory oxygen desaturations (3 studies, 1.2-6.7 % of the patients), epistaxis (3 studies, 0.8-3.3 % of the patients), increased heart rate (1 study, 1 patient), vomiting (1 study, 1 patient), hypertonia (1 study), and hypersalivation (1 study). No major complications were reported. Using VFSS as the reference standard, FEES was generally found to be less sensitive (25-94 %) but more specific (75-100 %) for aspiration, whereas the reverse was true for penetration (sensitivity 76-100 %, specificity 44-83 %). FEES protocols were highly heterogeneous with poor reporting. CONCLUSION: FEES is a safe, accurate, and generally feasible examination in the pediatric population with suspected dysphagia. However, a consensus on the best FEES protocol for clinical practice and research is currently lacking.

Pharyngeal Residue Scoring in Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing: Reliability Comparison and Applicability Among Different Scales.

Several scales to assess pharyngeal residue in Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) are currently available. The study aimed to compare the reliability and the applicability in real clinical practice among four rating scales: the Pooling Score (P-SCORE), the Boston Residue and Clearance Scale (BRACS), the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale (YPRSRS), and the Residue Ordinal Rating Scale (RORS). Twenty-five FEES videos were evaluated four times, once for each scale, by four speech and language pathologists. To test intra-rater reliability, the same raters re-assessed the videos two weeks apart. To test the applicability, raters recorded the time required to complete each assessment and the perceived difficulty/ease on a visual-analog scale (VAS). The intra-rater and the inter-rater reliability were calculated with Cohen's weighted Kappa and the Fleiss weighted Kappa, respectively. Time and perceived difficulty/ease scores were compared. The intra-rater reliability analysis showed almost perfect agreement for YPRSRS (k = 0.91) and RORS (k = 0.83) and substantial agreement for P-SCORE (k = 0.76) and BRACS (k = 0.74). Pairwise comparison showed no significant differences among the scales. The inter-rater reliability for the YPRSRS (k = 0.78) was significantly higher than P-SCORE (k = 0.52, p < 0.001), BRACS (k = 0.56, p < 0.001), and RORS (k = 0.65, p = 0.005). The BRACS required the longest time (p < 0.001) and was perceived as the most difficult scale (p < 0.001). The RORS was perceived as the easiest scale (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the YPRSRS showed the highest reliability, while raters perceived the RORS as the easiest to score. These results will allow clinicians to consciously choose which scale to use in clinical practice.

On the potential of drug repurposing in dysphagia treatment: New insights from a real-world pharmacovigilance study and a systematic review.

Background: Polypharmacy is common in patients with dysphagia. Routinely used drugs may influence swallowing function either improving or worsening it. We aimed to explore the potential effects of three commonly used drug classes on dysphagia and aspiration pneumonia through a systematic review and a real-world data analysis to probe the possibility of drug repurposing for dysphagia treatment. Material and Methods: Five electronic databases were searched. Studies on adults at risk for dysphagia, treated with Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors (DPP-4i), Adrenergic Beta-Antagonists (beta-blockers), or Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEi), and reporting outcomes on dysphagia or aspiration pneumonia were included. A nested case/non-case study was performed on adverse events recorded in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) on patients >64 years. Cases (dysphagia or aspiration pneumonia) were compared between patients only treated with Levodopa and patients who were concomitantly treated with the drugs of interest. Results: Twenty studies were included in the review (17 on ACEi, 2 on beta-blockers, and 1 on DPP-4i). Contrasting findings on the effects of ACEi were found, with a protective effect mainly reported in Asian studies on neurological patients. Beta-blockers were associated with a reduced dysphagia rate. The study on DPP-4i suggested no effect on dysphagia and an increased risk of aspiration pneumonia. The FAERS analysis showed a reduction of the risk for dysphagia/aspiration pneumonia with ACEi, beta-blockers, and DPP-4i. Conclusion: Our study explores the potential drug repurposing of ACEi, beta-blockers and DPP-4i in neurological patients with dysphagia to improve swallowing function and reduce aspiration pneumonia risk. Future randomized controlled studies should confirm these results and clarify the underlying mechanisms of action.

Reliability and Construct Validity of the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale: Performance on Videos and Effect of Bolus Consistency.

The Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale (YPRSRS) provides an image-based assessment of pharyngeal residue in the fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). Its performance was investigated only in FEES frames. This study analyzed the reliability and construct validity of the YPRSRS in FEES videos and the influence of bolus consistency. Thirty pairs of FEES videos and frames, 8 thin liquids (<50 mPa·s), 11 pureed (2583.3 mPa·s at 50 s−1, 697.87 mPa·s at 300 s−1), and 11 solid food; were assessed by 29 clinicians using the YPRSRS; 14 raters re-assessed materials at least 15 days from the first evaluation. Construct validity and intra-rater reliability were assessed using weighted Cohen's Kappa. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using weighted Fleiss Kappa. Construct validity and inter-rater reliability were almost perfect or excellent for frames (0.82 ≤ k ≤ 0.89) and substantial or intermediate to good for videos (0.67 ≤ k ≤ 0.79). Intra-rater reliability was almost perfect for both frames and videos (k ≥ 0.84). Concerning bolus consistency, thin liquids had significantly lower values of construct validity, intra-, and inter-rater reliability than pureed and solid food. Construct validity and inter-rater reliability were significantly lower for solid food than for pureed food. The YPRSRS showed satisfactory reliability and construct validity also in FEES videos. Reliability was significantly influenced by bolus consistency.