Development and Validation of a Prognostic Model of Swallowing Recovery and Enteral Tube Feeding After Ischemic Stroke.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Brain Ischemia
/ complications
Cohort Studies
Deglutition
Deglutition Disorders
/ etiology
Enteral Nutrition
/ methods
Female
Gastrostomy
/ methods
Humans
Intubation, Gastrointestinal
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Mobile Applications
Prognosis
Prospective Studies
Recovery of Function
Stroke
/ complications
Switzerland
Time Factors
Journal
JAMA neurology
ISSN: 2168-6157
Titre abrégé: JAMA Neurol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101589536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 05 2019
01 05 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
12
2
2019
medline:
18
2
2020
entrez:
12
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Predicting the duration of poststroke dysphagia is important to guide therapeutic decisions. Guidelines recommend nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding if swallowing impairment persists for 7 days or longer and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement if dysphagia does not recover within 30 days, but, to our knowledge, a systematic prediction method does not exist. To develop and validate a prognostic model predicting swallowing recovery and the need for enteral tube feeding. We enrolled participants with consecutive admissions for acute ischemic stroke and initially severe dysphagia in a prospective single-center derivation (2011-2014) and a multicenter validation (July 2015-March 2018) cohort study in 5 tertiary stroke referral centers in Switzerland. Severely impaired oral intake at admission (Functional Oral Intake Scale score <5). Recovery of oral intake (primary end point, Functional Oral Intake Scale ≥5) or return to prestroke diet (secondary end point) measured 7 (indication for NGT feeding) and 30 (indication for PEG feeding) days after stroke. In total, 279 participants (131 women [47.0%]; median age, 77 years [interquartile range, 67-84 years]) were enrolled (153 [54.8%] in the derivation study; 126 [45.2%] in the validation cohort). Overall, 64% (95% CI, 59-71) participants failed to recover functional oral intake within 7 days and 30% (95% CI, 24-37) within 30 days. Prolonged swallowing recovery was independently associated with poor outcomes after stroke. The final prognostic model, the Predictive Swallowing Score, included 5 variables: age, stroke severity on admission, lesion location, initial risk of aspiration, and initial impairment of oral intake. Predictive Swallowing Score prediction estimates ranged from 5% (score, 0) to 96% (score, 10) for a persistent impairment of oral intake on day 7 and from 2% to 62% on day 30. Model performance in the validation cohort showed a discrimination (C statistic) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001) for predicting the recovery of oral intake on day 7 and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87; P < .001) on day 30, and a discrimination for a return to prestroke diet of 0.94 (day 7; 95% CI, 0.87-1.00; P < .001) and 0.71 (day 30; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82; P < .001). Calibration plots showed high agreement between the predicted and observed outcomes. The Predictive Swallowing Score, available as a smartphone application, is an easily applied prognostic instrument that reliably predicts swallowing recovery. It will support decision making for NGT or PEG insertion after ischemic stroke and is a step toward personalized medicine.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30742198
pii: 2723504
doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4858
pmc: PMC6515605
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
561-570Références
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2012 Feb;21(2):114-20
pubmed: 20851628
Gastroenterology. 1995 Apr;108(4):1282-301
pubmed: 7698596
Hum Brain Mapp. 2017 Apr;38(4):2165-2176
pubmed: 28083906
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1989 Feb;52(2):236-41
pubmed: 2564884
Lancet. 2000 May 13;355(9216):1670-4
pubmed: 10905241
Stroke. 2013 Oct;44(10):2760-7
pubmed: 23887840
Clin Nutr. 2001 Oct;20(5):423-8
pubmed: 11534937
Neurology. 2014 Sep 2;83(10):874-82
pubmed: 25098538
Stroke. 2005 Dec;36(12):2756-63
pubmed: 16269630
Health Technol Assess. 2006 Jan;10(2):iii-iv, ix-x, 1-120
pubmed: 16409880
J Hum Nutr Diet. 2009 Apr;22(2):148-55
pubmed: 19302120
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Aug;86(8):1516-20
pubmed: 16084801
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2003 Jul-Aug;12(4):169-74
pubmed: 17903923
Stroke. 2015 Jun;46(6):1494-500
pubmed: 25953366
Stroke. 1999 Apr;30(4):744-8
pubmed: 10187872
Lancet. 2005 Feb 26-Mar 4;365(9461):764-72
pubmed: 15733717
Arch Neurol. 1992 Dec;49(12):1259-61
pubmed: 1449405
Dysphagia. 2017 Apr;32(2):209-215
pubmed: 28353151
Gut. 2003 Dec;52 Suppl 7:vii1-vii12
pubmed: 14612488
Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2015;24(3):379-86
pubmed: 26420177
Stroke. 2013 Nov;44(11):3232-4
pubmed: 23963332
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jan 6;162(1):55-63
pubmed: 25560714
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2017 Mar;26(3):480-487
pubmed: 28041902
Exp Transl Stroke Med. 2013 Dec 01;5(1):14
pubmed: 24289189
NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;33(2):201-8
pubmed: 23949048
Lancet Neurol. 2007 Dec;6(12):1106-14
pubmed: 18031707
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014 Jan;23(1):56-62
pubmed: 23102742
J Hum Nutr Diet. 2005 Jun;18(3):213-9
pubmed: 15882384
Dysphagia. 1997 Fall;12(4):188-93
pubmed: 9294937
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2012 Oct;21(7):569-76
pubmed: 21683618
Stroke. 1996 Jun;27(6):1028-32
pubmed: 8650709
Eur J Neurol. 2016 May;23(5):926-34
pubmed: 26901451
Nat Neurosci. 2010 Dec;13(12):1496-504
pubmed: 21057507