Evidence Hub

The effect of underlying diseases on pneumonia risk in patients with neurogenic or tumor-related dysphagia: a retrospective cohort study

A. Niessen, J. Zang, Ferkhunda Tinat, J. Nienstedt, Frank Müller, T. Flügel, J. Glinzer, Christina Pflug

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 2024

257 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

To analyze the association of neurological disorders (ND) and head and neck cancer (HNC) with dysphagia severity and aspiration pneumonia occurrence. Retrospective cohort study conducted at a university dysphagia center) for two consecutive years. Patients with ND or HNC were included if they had undergone a flexible endoscopic swallowing evaluation (FEES) at the dysphagia center, and at least one food consistency had been sampled and recorded. Outcomes of interest were swallowing safety, highest penetration-aspiration-score (PASmax), way of food intake, presence of a tracheal tube, and occurrence of pneumonia within the past two years. Of 257 consecutive patients, 199 were enrolled in the study and classified according to their underlying diagnosis into ND (120 patients) or HNC (79 patients). Forty-three HNC patients (54.4%) and 54 ND patients (45%) showed critical dysphagia in FEES (PAS ≥ 6). Binary logistic regression comparing both groups showed patients with ND to be 2.31 times more likely to develop pneumonia. However, if the 32 stroke patients were excluded from the calculation, PASmax remains the only significant variable affecting pneumonia risk in both groups. Liquids were the main challenge for ND patients, while aspirating HNC patients struggled with all consistencies. The study shows that patients with HNC and ND differ in pneumonia risk only if stroke patients are included in the ND group. If they are excluded, the PAS score is the only remaining risk factor…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 257 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