Evidence Hub

Treating postextubation dysphagia after stroke with pharyngeal electrical stimulation –insights from a randomized controlled pilot trial

S. Suntrup-Krueger, Bendix Labeit, Jonas von Itter, Anne Jung, I. Claus, S. Ahring, T. Warnecke, R. Dziewas et al.

Neurotherapeutics, 2025

60 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Postextubation dysphagia is a major risk factor for extubation failure in acute stroke. Pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) is a novel neurostimulation technique for neurogenic dysphagia rehabilitation. We conducted a randomized controlled pilot trial evaluating PES early after extubation in acute stroke (N = 60) focusing on dysphagia recovery trajectories and related outcomes until discharge. Patients with severe postextubation dysphagia, defined as Fiberoptic Endoscopic Dysphagia Severity Scale (FEDSS) score >4, received daily PES (real or sham, 10 min/day) for 3 consecutive days. By day 3, significantly fewer patients in the PES group exhibited persistent absence of spontaneous swallows (8 vs. 41 %) or pharyngeal sensory loss (4 vs. 55 %) compared to the sham group, indicating enhanced airway safety. Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) score at day 3 was significantly higher in the PES group (4.1 vs 2.1 pts). FEDSS at days 5–7 and 8–10 showed a sustained treatment effect over time (2.4 vs. 3.7 pts. and 2.2 vs. 3.4 pts), resulting in better FOIS at discharge (4.7 vs. 3.5 pts.). PES shortened LOS in the intensive care unit (ICU) (3.1 vs. 8.5 days, p = 0.008) and total hospital stay (13.8 vs. 21.9 days, p = 0.004) from study inclusion. Tracheotomy rates were 13 vs. 33 % (p < 0.067). The proportion of patients still cannulated at discharge (7 vs. 10 %) and the modified Rankin Scale at discharge (3.9 vs. 4.0) were comparable. PES enhanced recovery of postextubation…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 60 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free