This study was performed to test the clinical usefulness of the glucose test strip method for early detection of pulmonary aspiration in tube fed patients.
The subjects for the study were 36 patients who were receiving enteral feedings and 39 patients who were not given enteral feedings. For the analysis, the tube fed patients were divided into two groups (clinically significant aspiration and no aspiration) according to criteria.
The mean glucose concentration of tracheal secretions from non enteral fed patients was 26.35mg/dl and were lower than those concentrations found in tube fed patients (32.75mg/dl). The mean glucose concentration of the aspiration group was 45.60mg/dl and the glucose concentration of the non aspiration group was 19.93mg/dl. The difference was statistically significant (t=2.163, p=. 038). More subjects in the no aspiration group (73%) than the aspiration group (56%) had glucose concentrations below 20mg/dl. After deleting the cases that had samples containing blood, glucose concentrations of tracheal aspirates were lower in both groups.
The glucose level of the aspiration group was significantly lower than the no aspiration group and more subjects in the aspiration group had a glucose level higher than 101mg/dl. Therefore, the glucose test of tracheal secretions in tube fed patients could be a desirable test for screening for tracheal aspiration. Especially the patient who is showing repeatedly high glucose levels should not be given feedings until reassessment is completed.
The purpose of this study was to determine the significant factors for risk estimate of aspiration and to evaluate the efficiency of the dysphagia assessment tool.
A consecutive series of 210 stroke patients with aspiration symptoms such as cough and dysphagia who had soft or regular diet without tube feeding were examined. The dysphagia assessment tool for aspiration was compared with videofluoroscopy using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis.
In CART analysis, of 34 factors, the significant factors for estimating risk of aspiration were cough during swallowing, oral stasis, facial symmetry, salivary drooling, and cough after swallowing. The risk estimate error of the revised dysphagia assessment tool was 25.2%, equal to that of videofluoroscopy.
The results indicate that the dysphagia assessment tool developed and examined in this study was potentially useful in the clinical field and the primary risk estimating factor was cough during swallowing. Oral stasis, facial symmetry, salivary drooling, cough after swallowing were other significant factors, and based on these results, the dysphagia assessment tool for aspiration was revised and complemented.