Evidence Hub

Pneumonia, Mortality, and Other Outcomes Associated with Unsafe Swallowing Detected via Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) in Patients with Functional Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

L. Giraldo-Cadavid, A. Bastidas, Jorge Maldonado-Lancheros, Daniel A. Gasca-Zuluaga, Martha Johana Aguilar-Farias, Leonardo Bohorquez-Tibavisco

Dysphagia (New York. Print), 2022

1,168 participants · 17 citations

Abstract

The association between impairments in swallowing safety detected via fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) and dysphagia complications has been evaluated in small studies that have not allowed obtaining precise estimates of the presence of such an association. The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of dysphagia complications associated with the detection of premature spillage, residue, penetration, and aspiration via FEES. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature were carried out. A search strategy was established using terms of controlled and free vocabulary (free text) in the PubMed, Lilacs, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases. The initial search in the databases identified 3545 articles, of which 321 were excluded due to duplication, 3224 were selected for review of titles and abstracts, 45 were selected for full-text review, 37 were excluded for not meeting the selection criteria, and 8 were included for the final analysis, with a total population of 1168 patients. Aspiration increased the risk of pneumonia (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.52–5.80, P = 0.001). The number of studies that have evaluated the relationship of other FEES findings with dysphagia complications was limited (≤ 3). One study found a higher risk of mortality in patients with aspiration (OR 4.08, 95% CI 1.60–10.27, P = 0.003). Another study that evaluated the risk of mortality in a combined group of penetration and aspiration found no higher risk of mortality.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,168 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