We have located links that may give you full text access.
Assessment of Swallowing Function in Healthy Adults While Using High-Flow Nasal Cannula.
Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 2024 Februrary 15
OBJECTIVE: Despite widespread use of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for respiratory support, the effect of HFNC on swallowing physiology is poorly understood. Flow rates that permit safe swallowing have not been established. We aim to assess if healthy individuals have diminished swallowing function and safety at high flow rates.
STUDY DESIGN: Repeated measures with planned data collection.
SETTING: Outpatient dysphagia clinic.
METHODS: Swallowing function in a cohort of healthy individuals was assessed using Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES). Participants' safety of swallowing was assessed with different textures under randomized rates of HFNC (0, 30, 40, 50, and 60 LPM). Swallowing trials included quantities of thin liquids, mildly-thick liquids, and purees. Trials were scored using the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS). Pearson chi-square tests were used to test for correlation between PAS result, flow rate, and consistency across each quantity of material.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven subjects were enrolled. Forty-one percent were male with mean age of 34 years (11 standard deviation). Ninety-nine percent (267/270), 97% (n = 263/270), and 99% (399/405) of 1 sip swallows, 3 sip swallows, and 5 mL swallows, respectively, were safe. There was no significant correlation between swallow safety and flow rate using Pearson Chi-Square test across all consistencies and across all quantities of materials (P > 0.05). Of note, out of all subtrials, the thin liquid, 3 sips trial at 60 LPM, had the largest percent of unsafe swallows (14%).
CONCLUSION: Our results suggest rate of aspiration is not significantly affected by high flow nasal cannula in healthy individuals.
STUDY DESIGN: Repeated measures with planned data collection.
SETTING: Outpatient dysphagia clinic.
METHODS: Swallowing function in a cohort of healthy individuals was assessed using Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES). Participants' safety of swallowing was assessed with different textures under randomized rates of HFNC (0, 30, 40, 50, and 60 LPM). Swallowing trials included quantities of thin liquids, mildly-thick liquids, and purees. Trials were scored using the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS). Pearson chi-square tests were used to test for correlation between PAS result, flow rate, and consistency across each quantity of material.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven subjects were enrolled. Forty-one percent were male with mean age of 34 years (11 standard deviation). Ninety-nine percent (267/270), 97% (n = 263/270), and 99% (399/405) of 1 sip swallows, 3 sip swallows, and 5 mL swallows, respectively, were safe. There was no significant correlation between swallow safety and flow rate using Pearson Chi-Square test across all consistencies and across all quantities of materials (P > 0.05). Of note, out of all subtrials, the thin liquid, 3 sips trial at 60 LPM, had the largest percent of unsafe swallows (14%).
CONCLUSION: Our results suggest rate of aspiration is not significantly affected by high flow nasal cannula in healthy individuals.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease.Rheumatology 2024 April 17
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System: From History to Practice of a Secular Topic.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 5
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app