nach oben

Dysphagia

Erschienen in:

10.04.2021 | Original Article

Visual Analysis of Swallowing Efficiency and Safety (VASES): A Standardized Approach to Rating Pharyngeal Residue, Penetration, and Aspiration During FEES

verfasst von: James A. Curtis, James C. Borders, Sarah E. Perry, Avery E. Dakin, Zeina N. Seikaly, Michelle S. Troche

Erschienen in: Dysphagia | Ausgabe 2/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The primary aim of this study was to describe the development of the Visual Analysis of Swallowing Efficiency and Safety (VASES)—a standardized method to rate pharyngeal residue, penetration, and aspiration during FEES. As a secondary aim, we explored the feasibility of training novices to interpret FEES using VASES. Literature review and consensus panel discussions were used to develop standardized rules for VASES. A training protocol was developed and criterion ratings were established. Twenty-five novice raters completed VASES training and pre-/post-training assessments. Statistical analyses were used to examine pre- to post-training differences in the accuracy, reliability, and time to rate each video clip using VASES. Four sets of VASES rules were developed, including ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘when’, and ‘how’ to rate FEES. Large, significant post-training improvements in rating accuracy were observed across all seven VASES outcome measures (Cohen’s d range 0.74–1.59). Additionally, inter-rater reliability increased for four of the seven outcome measures, and the amount of time to rate each video clip decreased from 2.6 min pre-training to 1.5 min post-training. VASES is a standardized FEES rating method used to enhance the subjective analysis of pharyngeal residue, penetration, and aspiration. It can be feasibly taught to novice raters with a high level of success and may be an effective method to analyze swallowing safety and efficiency in clinical and research practices. Future research is needed to test the validity of VASES by examining its relationship with other validated FEES rating scales.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Langmore SE, Schatz K, Olsen N. Fiberoptic endoscopic examination of swallowing safety: a new procedure. Dysphagia. 1988;2(4):216–9.PubMedCrossRef

Langmore SE. History of fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing for evaluation and management of pharyngeal dysphagia: changes over the years. Dysphagia. 2017;32(1):27–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9775-x.PubMedCrossRef

Hiss SG, Postma GN. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. Laryngoscope. 2003;113:1386–93.PubMedCrossRef

Bevan K, Griffiths MV. Chronic aspiration and laryngeal competence. J Laryngol Otol. 1989;103(2):196–9.PubMedCrossRef

Langmore S, Schatz K, Olson N. Endoscopic and videofluoroscopic evaluations of swallowing and aspiration. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1991;100(8):678–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348949110000815.PubMedCrossRef

Curtis JA, Laus J, Yung KC, Courey MS. Static endoscopic evaluation of swallowing: transoral endoscopy during clinical swallow evaluations. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(10):2291–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25828.PubMedCrossRef

Fattori B, Giusti P, Mancini V, et al. Comparison between videofluoroscopy, fiberoptic endoscopy and scintigraphy for diagnosis of oro-pharyngeal dysphagia. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2016;36(5):395–402. https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-829.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Armstrong ES, Reynolds J, Carroll S, Sturdivant C, Suterwala MS. Comparing videofluoroscopy and endoscopy to assess swallowing in bottle-fed young infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Perinatol. 2019;39(9):1249–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-019-0438-2.PubMedCrossRef

Pavithran J, Puthiyottil IV, Kumar M, et al. Exploring the utility of fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in young children—a comparison with videofluoroscopy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110339.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Rao N, Brady SL, Chaudhuri G, Donzelli JJ, Wesling MW. Gold-standard? Analysis of the videofluoroscopic and fiberoptic endoscopic swallow examinations. J Appl Res Clin Exp Ther. 2003;3(1):89–96.

11.

Kelly AM, Leslie P, Beale T, Payten C, Drinnan MJ. Fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing and videofluoroscopy: does examination type influence perception of pharyngeal residue severity? Clin Otolaryngol. 2006;31(5):425–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4486.2006.01292.x.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Kelly AM, Drinnan MJ, Leslie P. Assessing penetration and aspiration: how do videofluoroscopy and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing compare? Laryngoscope. 2007;117(10):1723–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLG.0b013e318123ee6a.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Pisegna JM, Langmore SE. Parameters of instrumental swallowing evaluations: describing a diagnostic dilemma. Dysphagia. 2016;31(3):462–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9700-3.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Scharitzer M, Roesner I, Pokieser P, Weber M, Denk-Linnert DM. Simultaneous radiological and fiberendoscopic evaluation of swallowing (“SIRFES”) in patients after surgery of oropharyngeal/laryngeal cancer and postoperative dysphagia. Dysphagia. 2019;34(6):852–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-019-09979-8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

15.

Kamity R, Ferrara L, Dumpa V, Reynolds J, Islam S, Hanna N. Simultaneous videofluoroscopy and endoscopy for dysphagia evaluation in preterm infants—a pilot study. Front Pediatr. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.00537.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

16.

Kaye GM, Zorowitz RD, Baredes S. Role of flexible laryngoscopy in evaluating aspiration. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1997;106(8):705–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348949710600817.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Wu C-H, Hsiao T-Y, Chen J-C, Chang Y-C, Lee S-Y. Evaluation of swallowing safety with fiberoptic endoscope: comparison with videofluoroscopic technique from the departments of otolaryngology. Laryngoscope. 1997;107(3):396–401.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Périé S, Laccourreye L, Flahault A, Hazebroucq V, Chaussade S, St Guily JL. Role of videoendoscopy in assessment of pharyngeal function in oropharyngeal dysphagia: comparison with videofluoroscopy and manometry. Laryngoscope. 1998;108(11):1712–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-199811000-00022.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Madden C, Fenton J, Hughes J, Timon C. Comparison between videofluoroscopy and milk-swallow endoscopy in the assessment of swallowing function. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2000;25(6):504–6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2273.2000.00385.x.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Tabaee A, Johnson PE, Gartner CJ, Kalwerisky K, Desloge RB, Stewart MG. Patient-controlled comparison of flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing with sensory testing (FEESST) and videofluoroscopy. Laryngoscope. 2006;116(5):821–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlg.0000214670.40604.45.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Singh V, Berry S, Brockbank MJ, Frost RA, Tyler SE, Owens D. Investigation of aspiration: milk nasendoscopy versus videofluoroscopy. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2009;266(4):543–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-008-0779-5.CrossRef

22.

Da Silva AP, Lubianca NJF, Santoro PP. Comparison between videofluoroscopy and endoscopic evaluation of swallowing for the diagnosis of dysphagia in children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;143(2):204–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2010.03.027.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Park WY, Lee TH, Ham NS, et al. Adding endoscopist-directed flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing to the videofluoroscopic swallowing study increased the detection rates of penetration, aspiration, and pharyngeal residue. Gut Liver. 2015;9(5):623–8. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl14147.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Cimoli M, Oates J, McLaughlin E, Langmore SE. Exploring consistency and variation in fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing practice in Australia. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1159/000503132.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Martino R, Pron G, Diamant NE. Oropharyngeal dysphagia: surveying practice patterns of the speech-language pathologist. Dysphagia. 2004;19(3):165–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-004-0004-7.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Swan K, Cordier R, Brown T, Speyer R. Visuoperceptual analysis of the videofluoroscopic study of swallowing: an international Delphi study. Dysphagia. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-020-10174-3.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Swan K, Cordier R, Brown T, Speyer R. Psychometric properties of visuoperceptual measures of videofluoroscopic and fibre-endoscopic evaluations of swallowing: a systematic review. Dysphagia. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-018-9918-3.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Tohara H, Nakane A, Murata S, et al. Inter- and intra-rater reliability in fibroptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37(12):884–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02116.x.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Neubauer PD, Rademaker AW, Leder SB. The yale pharyngeal residue severity rating scale: an anatomically defined and image-based tool. Dysphagia. 2015;30(5):521–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-015-9631-4.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Starmer H, Arrese L, Langmore SE, et al. Adaptation of dynamic imaging grade of swallowing toxicity (DIGEST) for fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing: DIGEST-FEES. In: DRS 2020 Annual Meeting; 2020

31.

Kaneoka AS, Langmore SE, Krisciunas GP, et al. The Boston residue and clearance scale: preliminary reliability and validity testing. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2014;65(6):312–7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000365006.CrossRef

32.

Field K. The Boston Residue and Clearance Scale (BRACS): criterion validity testing. https://hdl.handle.net/2144/12100 (2013). Accessed 1 Nov 2020.

33.

Farneti D. Pooling score: an endoscopic model for evaluating severity of dysphagia. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2008;28(3):135.PubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Sabry A, Coyle JL, Abou-Elsaad T. Mansoura fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing residue rating scale (MFRRS): an anatomically based tool—a preliminary study. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1159/000512158.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Butler SG, Markley L, Sanders B, Stuart A. Reliability of the penetration aspiration scale with flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2015;124(6):480–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489414566267.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Colodny N. Interjudge and intrajudge reliabilities in fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (fees) using the penetration-aspiration scale: a replication study. Dysphagia. 2002;17(4):308–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-002-0073-4.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Nienstedt JC, Müller F, Nießen A, et al. Narrow band imaging enhances the detection rate of penetration and aspiration in FEES. Dysphagia. 2017;32(3):443–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-017-9784-4.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Hutcheson KA, Barrow MP, Barringer DA, et al. Dynamic imaging grade of swallowing toxicity (DIGEST): Scale development and validation. Cancer. 2017;123(1):62–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30283.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Pisegna JM, Borders JC, Kaneoka A, Coster WJ, Leonard R, Langmore SE. Reliability of untrained and experienced raters on FEES: rating overall residue is a simple task. Dysphagia. 2018;33(5):645–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-018-9883-x.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Pisegna JM, Kaneoka A, Leonard R, Langmore SE. Rethinking residue: determining the perceptual continuum of residue on FEES to enable better measurement. Dysphagia. 2018;33(1):100–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-017-9838-7.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Pisegna JM, Kaneoka A, Coster WJ, Leonard R, Langmore SE. Residue ratings on FEES: trends for clinical application of residue measurement. Dysphagia. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-019-10089-8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

42.

Grant S, Aitchison T, Henderson E, et al. A comparison of the reproducibility and the sensitivity to change of visual analogue scales, Borg scales, and Likert scales in normal subjects during submaximal exercise. Chest. 1997;116(5):1208–17.CrossRef

43.

Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Berman LB, Keller JL. A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(12):1129–33.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Zraick RI, Kempster GB, Connor NP, et al. Establishing validity of the consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V). Am J Speech-Lang Pathol. 2011;20(1):14–22. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0105).PubMedCrossRef

45.

Martin-Harris B. Do we have valid and reliable means of quantifying severity of oropharyngeal dysphagia? Moving toward standardization. Perspect Swallow Swallow Disord. 2007;16(1):20–4. https://doi.org/10.1044/sasd16.1.20.CrossRef

46.

Rosenbek JC, Robbins J, Roecker EB, Coyle JL, Wood JL. A penetration-aspiration scale. Dysphagia. 1996;11(2):93–8.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Curtis JA, Seikaly ZN, Dakin AE, Troche MS. Detection of aspiration, penetration, and pharyngeal residue during flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES): Comparing the effects of color, coating, and opacity. Dysphagia. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-020-10131-0.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Curtis J, Perry S, Troche MS. Detection of airway invasion during flexible endoscopic evaluations of swallowing: comparing barium, blue dye, and green dye. Am J Speech-Lang Pathol. 2019;28(2):515–20. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-18-0119.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Routledge; 1988.

50.

Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991.

51.

Coffey MM, Tolley N, Howard D, Drinnan M, Hickson M. An investigation of the post-laryngectomy swallow using videofluoroscopy and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). Dysphagia. 2018;33(3):369–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-017-9862-7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

52.

Steele CM, Peladeau-Pigeon M, Barbon CAE, et al. Reference values for healthy swallowing across the range from thin to extremely thick liquids. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019;62(5):1338–63. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-S-18-0448.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

53.

Mancopes R, Peladeau-Pigeon M, Barrett E, et al. Quantitative videofluoroscopic analysis of swallowing physiology and function in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020;63(11):3643–58. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00154.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

54.

Waito AA, Plowman EK, Barbon CEA, et al. A cross-sectional, quantitative videofluoroscopic analysis of swallowing physiology and function in individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020;63(4):948–62. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00051.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

55.

How Long Does the Training Take?. Northern Speech Services. What Is The MBSImP^TM Approach? MBSImP | Modified Barium Swallow Impairment Profile. https://www.northernspeech.com/mbsimp/. Accessed 1 Nov 2020.

56.

Borders JC, Brates D. Use of the Penetration-Aspiration Scale in dysphagia research: a systematic review. Dysphagia. 2020;35(4):583–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-019-10064-3.PubMedCrossRef

57.

Steele CM, Grace-Martin K. Reflections on clinical and statistical use of the Penetration-Aspiration Scale. Dysphagia. 2017;32:601–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-017-9809-z.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

58.

Vose A, Humbert I. “‘Hidden in plain sight’”: a descriptive review of laryngeal vestibule closure. Dysphagia. 2019;34:281–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-018-9928-1.PubMedCrossRef

59.

Ekberg O. Closure of the laryngeal vestibule during deglutition. Acta Otolaryngol. 1982;93(1–2):123–9.PubMedCrossRef

60.

Steele CM, Peladeau-Pigeon M, Barrett E, Wolkin TS. The risk of penetration–aspiration related to residue in the pharynx. Am J Speech-Lang Pathol. 2020;29(3):1608–17. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00042.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

61.

Molfenter SM, Steele CM. The relationship between residue and aspiration on the subsequent swallow: an application of the normalized residue ratio scale. Dysphagia. 2013;28(4):494–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-013-9459-8.PubMedCrossRef

62.

Lundy DS, Smith C, Colangelo L, et al. Aspiration: cause and implications. Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 1999;120(4):474–8.CrossRef

63.

Pisegna JM, Langmore SE, Meyer TK, Pauloski B. Swallowing patterns in the HNC population: timing of penetration-aspiration events and residue. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599820933883.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

64.

Martin-Harris B, Brodsky MB, Michel Y, et al. MBS measurement tool for swallow impairment-MBSimp: establishing a standard. Dysphagia. 2008;23(4):392–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-008-9185-9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

65.

Pisegna JM, Langmore SE, Meyer TK, Pauloski B. Swallowing patterns in the HNC population: timing of penetration-aspiration events and residue. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (United States). 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599820933883.CrossRef

66.

Steele CM, Peladeau-Pigeon M, Nagy A, Waito AA. Measurement of pharyngeal residue from lateral view videofluoroscopic images. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020;63(5):1404–15. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00314.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

67.

McHorney CA, Bricker DE, Kramer AE, et al. The SWAL-QOL outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: I. Conceptual foundation and item development. Dysphagia. 2000;15:115–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004550010012.PubMedCrossRef

68.

Colodny N. Interjudge and intrajudge reliabilities in Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (Fees®) using the Penetration-Aspiration Scale: a replication study. Dysphagia. 2002;17(4):308–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-002-0073-0.PubMedCrossRef

69.

Langmore SE, Krisciunas GP, Warner H, et al. Abnormalities of aspiration and swallowing function in survivors of acute respiratory failure. Dysphagia. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-020-10199-8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

70.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Medicare CPT Coding Rules for Speech-Language Pathology Services. https://www.asha.org/practice/reimbursement/medicare/slp_coding_rules/ (2020). Accessed 24 Dec 2020

71.

Hey C, Pluschinski P, Pajunk R, et al. Penetration–aspiration: Is their detection in FEES® reliable without video recording? Dysphagia. 2015;30(4):418–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-015-9616-3.PubMedCrossRef

72.

Nordin NA, Miles A, Allen J. Measuring competency development in objective evaluation of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies. Dysphagia. 2017;32(3):427–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9776-9.PubMedCrossRef

73.

Leonard R, Kendall K. Dysphagia assessment and treatment planning: a team approach. 3rd ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing, Inc.; 2014.

Titel: Visual Analysis of Swallowing Efficiency and Safety (VASES): A Standardized Approach to Rating Pharyngeal Residue, Penetration, and Aspiration During FEES
verfasst von: James A. Curtis
James C. Borders
Sarah E. Perry
Avery E. Dakin
Zeina N. Seikaly
Michelle S. Troche
Publikationsdatum: 10.04.2021
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Dysphagia / Ausgabe 2/2022
Print ISSN: 0179-051X
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0460
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-021-10293-5

Update HNO

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Visual Analysis of Swallowing Efficiency and Safety (VASES): A Standardized Approach to Rating Pharyngeal Residue, Penetration, and Aspiration During FEES

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet HNO

Kinder mit anhaltender Sinusitis profitieren häufig von Antibiotika

CUP-Syndrom: Künstliche Intelligenz kann Primärtumor finden

Sind Frauen die fähigeren Ärzte?

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

Update HNO

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2022

Dysphagia and Hoarseness of Voice: What is the Diagnosis?

A Safe Way to Administer Drugs Through a Nutrition Tube—The Simple Suspension Method

Management of Dysphagia in Nursing Homes: A National Survey

Sham Feeding Induced Gastric Acid Secretion in Patients with Caustic Induced Esophageal Stricture

Evaluation of the Swallowing and Voice Functions in Ankylosing Spondylitis Patients

Psychometric Properties of the MDADI—A Preliminary Study of Whether Less is Truly More?

Neu im Fachgebiet HNO

Kinder mit anhaltender Sinusitis profitieren häufig von Antibiotika

CUP-Syndrom: Künstliche Intelligenz kann Primärtumor finden

Sind Frauen die fähigeren Ärzte?

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

Update HNO