Stroke · 2016
Pharyngeal Electrical Stimulation for Treatment of Dysphagia in Subacute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
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, Swallowing Treatment Using Pharyngeal Electrical Stimulation (STEPS) Trial Investigators
Аннотация
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.
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.