Evidence Hub

Prevalence of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia and Its Value as a Prognostic Factor in Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Prospective Case-Control Study

Amando Márquez-Sixto, J. Navarro-Esteva, Lucía Yomara Batista-Guerra, David Simón-Bautista, Felipe Rodríguez-de Castro

Cureus, 2024

226 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background: Although oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) is a common finding in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), specific recommendations are not provided in the current clinical guidelines. Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of OD and its associated factors among patients hospitalized for CAP and to assess one-year outcomes according to the presence or absence of OD. Methods: We studied 226 patients hospitalized for CAP and 226 patients hospitalized for respiratory conditions other than CAP. We screened the risk of OD using the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10), followed by the volume-viscosity swallow test (V-VST). Results: A total of 122 (53.9%) patients with CAP had confirmed OD compared with 44 (19.4%) patients without CAP. Patients with CAP and OD were older (p < 0.001; 1.02-1.07) and had less familial/institutional support (p = 0.036; 0.12-0.91) compared to patients with CAP and no OD. OD was more prevalent as the CURB-65 score increased (p < 0.001). Patients with OD spent more time in the hospital (14.5 vs. 11.0 days; p = 0.038) and required more visits to the emergency room (ER). Twenty (16.4%) patients with CAP and OD died after discharge vs. one (0.8%) patient with CAP and no OD (p < 0.001; CI = 2.24-42.60). Conclusions: The prevalence of OD in hospitalized patients with CAP is higher than in patients hospitalized for other respiratory diagnoses. Advanced age, lower familial/institutional support, and increased CAP severity are associated with OD.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case-control, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 226 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