The purpose of this investigation was to examine, via flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), factors that affect penetration and aspiration during swallowing across the adult lifespan.
Methods:
Healthy adults (N = 203) across the third to ninth decades of life participated. Penetration Aspiration Scale (PAS) scores were assessed during FEES as a function of age, sex, liquid type (water and skim, 2%, and whole milk), volume (5, 10, 15, and 20 ml), and delivery (cup and straw).
Results:
The PAS scores differed significantly by liquid type (P < .0001) and age group (P < .0001). In general, PAS scores were higher for milk versus water swallows and for older age groups. Significant interactions of liquid type by age (P = .0042) and sex by volume (P = .020) were also evidenced. In addition, the odds of penetration and aspiration increased significantly with milks compared to water and age (P < .05). Increased bolus volume also increased the odds of aspiration (P < .05).
Conclusions:
Aspiration may be an underappreciated phenomenon in healthy adults. The inclusion of both water and milk test boluses of various volumes during FEES may be important for the appropriate assessment of adult penetration and aspiration.
LangmoreSESchatzKOlsenN. Fiberoptic endoscopic examination of swallowing safety: a new procedure. Dysphagia. 1988;2(4):216-219.
2.
ButlerSGStuartACaseDReesCVitolinsMKritchevskySB. Effects of liquid type, delivery method, and bolus volume on penetration-aspiration scale scores in healthy older adults during flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2011;120:288-295.
3.
ButlerSGStuartAKempS. Flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in healthy young and older adults. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2009;118(2):99-106.
4.
ButlerSGLengLXReesCWilliamsonJKirtchevskySB. Factors influencing aspiration during swallowing in healthy older adults. Laryngoscope. 2010;120(11):2147-2152.
5.
ButlerSGStuartAMarkleyLReesC. Penetration and aspiration in healthy older adults as assessed during endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2009;118(3):190-198.
6.
ButlerSGStuartAWilhelmEReesCWilliamsonJKritchevskyS. The effects of aspiration status, liquid type, and bolus volume on pharyngeal peak pressure in healthy older adults. Dysphagia. 2011;26:225-231.
7.
DanielsSKSchroederMFDeGeorgePCCoreyDMRosenbekJC. Effects of verbal cue on bolus flow during swallowing. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2007;16(2):140-147.
8.
ButlerSGMarkleyLSandersBStuartA. Reliability of the penetration aspiration scale with flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2015;124(6):480-483.
9.
ColodnyN. Interjudge and intrajudge reliabilities in fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (fees) using the penetration-aspiration scale: a replication study. Dysphagia. 2002;17(4):308-315.
10.
KellyAMDrinnanMJLeslieP. Assessing penetration and aspiration: how do videofluoroscopy and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing compare?Laryngoscope. 2007;117(10):1723-1727.
11.
RosenbekJCRobbinsJARoeckerEBCoyleJLWoodJL. A penetration-aspiration scale. Dysphagia. 1996;11(2):93-98.
12.
DaggettALogemannJRademakerAPauloskiB. Laryngeal penetration during deglutition in normal subjects of various ages. Dysphagia. 2006;21(4):270-274.
13.
KeppelGWickensJD. Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook. 4th ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education; 2004.
14.
ButlerSGStuartAWilhelmEReesCWilliamsonJKritchevskyS. The effects of aspiration status, liquid type, and bolus volume on pharyngeal peak pressure in healthy older adults. Dysphagia. 2011;26(3):225-231.
15.
ButlerSGStuartACastellDRussellGBKochKKempS. Effects of age, gender, bolus condition, viscosity, and volume on pharyngeal and upper esophageal sphincter pressure and temporal measurements during swallowing. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009;52(1):240-253.
16.
AllenJEWhiteCJLeonardRJBelafskyPC. Prevalence of penetration and aspiration on videofluoroscopy in normal individuals without dysphagia. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;142(2):208-213.
17.
EkbergOFeinbergMJ. Altered swallowing function in elderly patients without dysphagia: radiologic findings in 56 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;156(6):1181-1184.
18.
HindJANicosiaMARoeckerEBCarnesMLRobbinsJ. Comparison of effortful and noneffortful swallows in healthy middle-aged and older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(12):1661-1665.
19.
KamarunasEEMcCulloughGHGuidryTJMennemeierMSchlutermanK. Effects of topical nasal anesthetic on fiberoptic endoscopic examination of swallowing with sensory testing (FEESST). Dysphagia. 2014;29(1):33-43.
20.
McCulloughGHWertzRTRosenbekJCSuiterDMcCoyetSC. Defining swallowing function by age: promises and pitfalls of pigeonholing. Top Geriatr Rehabil. 2007;23(4):290-307.
21.
MurrayJLangmoreSEGinsbergSDostieA. The significance of accumulated oropharyngeal secretions and swallowing frequency in predicting aspiration. Dysphagia. 1996;11(2):99-103.
22.
RobbinsJCoyleJRosenbekJRoeckerEWoodJ. Differentiation of normal and abnormal airway protection during swallowing using the penetration-aspiration scale. Dysphagia. 1999;14(4):228-232.
23.
Smith-HammondCANewKCPietrobonRCurtisDJScharverCHTurnerDA. Prospective analysis of incidence and risk factors of dysphagia in spine surgery patients: comparison of anterior cervical, posterior cervical, and lumbar procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(13):1441-1446.
24.
ToddJTStuartALintzenichCRWallinJGrace-MartinKButlerSG. Stability of aspiration status in healthy adults. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2013;122(5):289-293.
25.
ButlerSGClarkHBaginskiSGToddJTLintzenichCLengX. Computed tomography pulmonary findings in healthy older adult aspirators versus nonaspirators. Laryngoscope. 2014;124(2):494-497.
26.
HolasMADePippoKLRedingMJ. Aspiration and relative risk of medical complications following stroke. Arch Neurol. 1994;51(10):1051-1053.
27.
ChuaKSKongKH. Functional outcome in brain stem stroke patients after rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(2):194-197.
28.
DePippoKLHolasMARedingMJ. The Burke dysphagia screening test: validation of its use in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75(12):1284-1286.
29.
GordonCHewerRLWadeDT. Dysphagia in acute stroke. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987;295(6595):411-414.
30.
LimSHLieuPKPhuaSYet al. Accuracy of bedside clinical methods compared with fiberoptic endoscopic examination of swallowing (FEES) in determining the risk of aspiration in acute stroke patients. Dysphagia. 2001;16(1):1-6.
31.
MannGHankeyGJCameronD. Swallowing function after stroke: prognosis and prognostic factors at 6 months. Stroke. 1999;30(4):744-748.
32.
SmithardDGO’NeillPAParksCMorrisJ. Complications and outcome after acute stroke. Does dysphagia matter?Stroke. 1996;27(7):1200-1204.
33.
SalaRMuntóMJde la CalleJet al. [Swallowing changes in cerebrovascular accidents: incidence, natural history, and repercussions on the nutritional status, morbidity, and mortality]. Rev Neurol. 1998;27(159):759-766.
34.
KiddDLawsonJNesbittRMacMahonJ. The natural history and clinical consequences of aspiration in acute stroke. QJM. 1995;88(6):409-413.
35.
LangmoreSETerpenningMSSchorkAet al. Predictors of aspiration pneumonia: how important is dysphagia?Dysphagia. 1998;13(2):69-81.
36.
MasieroSPierobonRPreviatoCGomieroE. Pneumonia in stroke patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia: a six-month follow-up study. Neurol Sci. 2008;29(3):139-145.
37.
MartinBJCorlewMMWoodHet al. The association of swallowing dysfunction and aspiration pneumonia. Dysphagia. 1994;9(1):1-6.
38.
AvivJESaccoRLMohrJPet al. Laryngopharyngeal sensory testing with modified barium swallow as predictors of aspiration pneumonia after stroke. Laryngoscope. 1997;107(9):1254-1260.
39.
MartinoRFoleyNBhogalSDiamantNSpeechleyMTeasellR. Dysphagia after stroke: incidence, diagnosis, and pulmonary complications. Stroke. 2005;36(12):2756-2763.
40.
AdnerhillIEkbergOGroherME. Determining normal bolus size for thin liquids. Dysphagia. 1989;4(1):1-3.
41.
FinkTARossJB. Are we testing a true thin liquid?Dysphagia. 2009;24(3):285-289.
42.
LogemannJAGenslerGRobbinsJet al. A randomized study of three interventions for aspiration of thin liquids in patients with dementia or Parkinson’s disease. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;51(1):173-183.
43.
KuhlemeierKVPalmerJBRosenbergD. Effect of liquid bolus consistency and delivery method on aspiration and pharyngeal retention in dysphagia patients. Dysphagia. 2001;16(2):119-122.
44.
FengXToddTLintzenichCRet al. Aging-related geniohyoid muscle atrophy is related to aspiration status in healthy older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013;68(7):853-860.
45.
FengXToddTHuYet al. Age-related changes of hyoid bone position in healthy older adults with aspiration. Laryngoscope. 2014;124(6):E231-E236.
46.
KurosuALogemannJA. Gender effects on airway closure in normal subjects. Dysphagia. 2010;25(4):284-290.
47.
ToddJTLintzenichCRButlerSG. Isometric and swallowing tongue strength in healthy adults. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(10):2469-2473.
48.
ButlerSGStuartALengXet al. The relationship of aspiration status with tongue and handgrip strength in healthy older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011;66(4):452-458.
49.
DanielsSKSchroederMFDeGeorgePCCoreyDMFoundasALRosenbekJC. Defining and measuring dysphagia following stroke. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009;18(1):74-81.
50.
LogemannJAPauloskiBRRademakerAWKahrilasPJ.Oropharyngeal swallow in younger and older women: vidofluoroscopic analysis. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002. 45(3):434-445.
51.
PelletierCALawlessHT. Effect of citric acid and citric acid-sucrose mixtures on swallowing in neurogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia. Dysphagia. 2003;18(4):231-241.
52.
ButlerSGMaslanJStuartAet al. Factors influencing bolus dwell times in healthy older adults assessed endoscopically. Laryngoscope. 2011;121(12):2526-2534.
53.
HumbertIARobbinsJ. Dysphagia in the elderly. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2008;19(4):853-866.
