Tag Archives: video fluoroscopic swallow study

Sheila McBrayer: Swallow Dysfunction and Swallow Evaluation in Infants

Posted on by
Reply

Recently, Sheila McBrayer SLP gave our group a terrific update on swallow dysfunction and swallow studies in infants. She is a nationally-certified speech-language pathologist with more than 20 years of experience at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta. She has led initiatives in advanced swallowing assessment, worked to standardize instrumental swallowing assessments across the hospital campuses, and presented at regional and national conferences on NICU feeding topics. My notes below may contain errors in transcription and in omission. Along with my notes, I have included many of her slides.

Key points:

  • Video fluoroscopic swallow study )VFSS) is preferred nomenclature over modified barium swallow (MBS) or oral pharyngeal motility study (OPMS)
  • Study duration is important.  Watch swallow for 2:30 minutes if feasible (KE McGrattan, et al Ped Radiology 2020; 50: 199-206)
  • Clinical evaluation accurately identifies aspiration in 56.7% in one study (may be better in a lower risk population).  Thus, if concerned about aspiration, an objective study (e.g. VFSS) is needed
  • Analysis of sounds during feeding may provide insight into risk of aspiration
  • Ongoing efforts to standardize evaluation protocol.  BaByVFSSimP tool (for bottle feeding)
  • Common impairments: increased sucking prior to bolus movement, disorganized lingual motion, late/incomplete laryngeal closure, disorganized or decreased pharyngeal transport, esophageal retention, and suck-swallow ratio variability
  • If unilateral cord dysfunction, feed infant with position to allow the better functioning vocal cord to be lower
  • When to care about penetration: deeper (e.g. touching vocal folds) and more frequent penetration.  Deeper penetration should be considered as similar risk as aspiration on swallow study
  • Thickening feeds can be difficult

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure. This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition

Which kids who aspirate need a gastrostomy tube?

Posted on by

While some may think all children who aspirate should have a gastrostomy tube, a recent study (ME McSweeney et al. J Pediatr 2016; 170: 79-84) indicates a more selective approach is appropriate.

This retrospective review of 114 patients (2006-2013) compared patients fed by gastrostomy tube (g-tube) and those who were fed orally.  In their introduction, the authors note, “there has been a practice shift at many institutions away from g-tube placement and more toward continuing to feed children with aspiration orally.”  All patients in the study had aspiration and/or penetration with thin liquids and/or nectar thick liquids on a videofluoroscopic swallow study (VFSS).

There were 61 who aspirated only thin liquids and 53 who aspirated thin and nectar thick liquids.  All patients were divided into two groups: a g-tube group which did not have a preoperative trial of thickened feeds and an orally-fed group.  Patients who had a fundoplication or post-pyloric feeds were excluded from this study.

Key findings:

  • There were no significant differences in admissions among those who aspirated thins compared with those that aspirated thin & nectar thick liquids.
  • Patients fed by gastrostomy were hospitalized more frequently (median 2 times compared to once with orally-fed) and for longer duration (median 24 days compared with median 2 days for orally-fed)
  • No differences in total pulmonary admissions were noted between gastrostomy-fed and orally-fed group

The authors advocate a trial of oral feeding in all children cleared to take nectar or honey thick liquids prior to g-tube placement.

 

While the authors note that g-tube placement did not result in fewer pulmonary admissions, in their discussion, they also reviewed studies which showed that fundoplication (with g-tube) was not associated with a reduced risk of respiratory complications and in fact, had higher rehospitalizations.

This current study, and previous studies, are limited by their design.  Patients were not randomized and g-tube-fed patients may have had more comorbidities, biasing the results.  The authors note that there were 11 children who failed oral thickening trials and needed g-tube placement.  At the same time, there are substantial numbers of children whose swallow function improve.  Also, the authors note that thickening agents have not been shown to lead to dehydration risk.

My take: the widespread availability of swallow studies has likely led to some children undergoing g-tube placement who may have been fine with ongoing orally-thickened feeds.  Avoiding g-tube placement for children who can tolerate and thrive on thickened feeds is worthwhile.

Related blog posts:

Walnut Street Bridge & Tennessee River

Walnut Street Bridge & Tennessee River