Pharyngeal Electrical Stimulation for Treatment of Dysphagia in Subacute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › peer-review
Standard
Pharyngeal Electrical Stimulation for Treatment of Dysphagia in Subacute Stroke : A Randomized Controlled Trial. / Bath, Philip M W; 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; Swallowing Treatment Using Pharyngeal Electrical Stimulation (STEPS) Trial Investigators.
In: Stroke, Vol. 47, No. 6, 06.2016, p. 1562-1570 + tillæg.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Pharyngeal Electrical Stimulation for Treatment of Dysphagia in Subacute Stroke
T2 - A Randomized Controlled Trial
AU - Bath, Philip M W
AU - Scutt, Polly
AU - Love, Jo
AU - Clavé, Pere
AU - Cohen, David
AU - Dziewas, Rainer
AU - Iversen, Helle K
AU - Ledl, Christian
AU - Ragab, Suzanne
AU - Soda, Hassan
AU - Warusevitane, Anushka
AU - Woisard, Virginie
AU - Hamdy, Shaheen
AU - Swallowing Treatment Using Pharyngeal Electrical Stimulation (STEPS) Trial Investigators
N1 - © 2016 The Authors.
PY - 2016/6
Y1 - 2016/6
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Aged
KW - Aged, 80 and over
KW - Brain Ischemia
KW - Cerebral Hemorrhage
KW - Deglutition Disorders
KW - Double-Blind Method
KW - Electric Stimulation Therapy
KW - Female
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
KW - Pharynx
KW - Photofluorography
KW - Stroke
KW - Journal Article
KW - Multicenter Study
KW - Randomized Controlled Trial
U2 - 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.012455
DO - 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.012455
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 27165955
VL - 47
SP - 1562-1570 + tillæg
JO - Stroke
JF - Stroke
SN - 0039-2499
IS - 6
ER -
ID: 179084684