Cargando…

Pharyngeal Electrical Stimulation for Treatment of Dysphagia in Subacute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE—: Dysphagia is common after stroke, associated with increased death and dependency, and treatment options are limited. Pharyngeal electric stimulation (PES) is a novel treatment for poststroke dysphagia that has shown promise in 3 pilot randomized controlled trials. METHODS—:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bath, Philip M., Scutt, Polly, Love, Jo, Clavé, Pere, Cohen, David, Dziewas, Rainer, Iversen, Helle K., Ledl, Christian, Ragab, Suzanne, Soda, Hassan, Warusevitane, Anushka, Woisard, Virginie, Hamdy, Shaheen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4878285/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27165955
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.012455
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE—: Dysphagia is common after stroke, associated with increased death and dependency, and treatment options are limited. Pharyngeal electric stimulation (PES) is a novel treatment for poststroke dysphagia that has shown promise in 3 pilot randomized controlled trials. METHODS—: We randomly assigned 162 patients with a recent ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke and dysphagia, defined as a penetration aspiration score (PAS) of ≥3 on video fluoroscopy, to PES or sham treatment given on 3 consecutive days. The primary outcome was swallowing safety, assessed using the PAS, at 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes included dysphagia severity, function, quality of life, and serious adverse events at 6 and 12 weeks. RESULTS—: In randomized patients, the mean age was 74 years, male 58%, ischemic stroke 89%, and PAS 4.8. The mean treatment current was 14.8 (7.9) mA and duration 9.9 (1.2) minutes per session. On the basis of previous data, 45 patients (58.4%) randomized to PES seemed to receive suboptimal stimulation. The PAS at 2 weeks, adjusted for baseline, did not differ between the randomized groups: PES 3.7 (2.0) versus sham 3.6 (1.9), P=0.60. Similarly, the secondary outcomes did not differ, including clinical swallowing and functional outcome. No serious adverse device-related events occurred. CONCLUSIONS—: In patients with subacute stroke and dysphagia, PES was safe but did not improve dysphagia. Undertreatment of patients receiving PES may have contributed to the neutral result. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION—: URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN25681641.