Evaluation of airway protection: Quantitative timing measures versus penetration/aspiration score

摘要

Objectives/Hypothesis Quantitative measures of swallowing function may improve the reliability and accuracy of modified barium swallow (MBS) study interpretation. Quantitative study analysis has not been widely instituted, however, secondary to concerns about the time required to make measures and a lack of research demonstrating impact on MBS interpretation. This study compares the accuracy of the penetration/aspiration (PEN/ASP) scale (an observational visual‐perceptual assessment tool) to quantitative measures of airway closure timing relative to the arrival of the bolus at the upper esophageal sphincter in identifying a failure of airway protection during deglutition. Study Design Retrospective review of clinical swallowing data from a university‐based outpatient clinic. Methods Swallowing data from 426 patients were reviewed. Patients with normal PEN/ASP scores were identified, and the results of quantitative airway closure timing measures for three liquid bolus sizes were evaluated. The incidence of significant airway closure delay with and without a normal PEN/ASP score was determined. Inter‐rater reliability for the quantitative measures was calculated. Results In patients with a normal PEN/ASP score, 33% demonstrated a delay in airway closure on at least one swallow during the MBS study. There was no correlation between PEN/ASP score and airway closure delay. Inter‐rater reliability for the quantitative measure of airway closure timing was nearly perfect (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.973). Conclusions The use of quantitative measures of swallowing function, in conjunction with traditional visual perceptual methods of MBS study interpretation, improves the identification of airway closure delay, and hence, potential aspiration risk, even when no penetration or aspiration is apparent on the MBS study. Level of Evidence 4. Laryngoscope , 127:2314–2318, 2017