Evidence Hub

Predictors of pharyngeal electrical stimulation treatment success in tracheotomised stroke patients with dysphagia: Secondary analysis from PHADER cohort study

Ivy Cheng, P. Bath, S. Hamdy, P. Muhle, S. Mistry, R. Dziewas, S. Suntrup-Krueger

Neurotherapeutics, 2024

60 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) has emerged as a promising intervention for neurogenic dysphagia, with potential benefits in reducing dysphagia severity in stroke patients. PES may facilitate decannulation in tracheotomised stroke patients with dysphagia, yet the predictive factors for treatment success have not been investigated in detail. This study used data from the PHAryngeal electrical stimulation for treatment of neurogenic Dysphagia European Registry (PHADER) study to identify predictive factors for PES treatment success among patients with post stroke dysphagia who required mechanical ventilation and tracheotomy. Multiple linear regression was performed to predict treatment success, as measured in improvement in dysphagia severity rating scale (DSRS), accounting for age, sex, stroke type, lesion location, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, feeding status, time from stroke onset to PES, PES perceptual threshold and PES stimulation intensity at the first session. Cox regression was conducted to identify the predictors for decannulation for all participants. Ninety-eight participants (mean [SD] age = 66.6 [13.0]; male 73.5%) were included in the analyses. Regression analyses showed that early intervention (p = 0.004) and younger age (p = 0.049) were significant predictors for treatment success. For participants who received PES during tracheotomy (n = 60; mean [SD] age = 66.6 [11.2]; male 73.3%), supratentorial stroke (p = 0.033)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, 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: 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