CRIS

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://investigadores.udd.cl/handle/123456789/1

Browse

Settings

Access type: UnknownSubject: search.filters.subject.deglutition disorders

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Item type:Publication,
    Are the Chicago 3.0 manometric diagnostics consistent with Chicago 4.0?
    (2023)
    Angélica Tobón
    ;
    Albis C Hani
    ;
    Cristiam D Pulgarin
    ;
    Andres F Ardila
    ;
    Oscar M Muñoz
    <jats:title>Summary</jats:title> <jats:p>There is little information on the degree of concordance between the results obtained using the Chicago 3.0 (CCv3.0) and Chicago 4.0 (CCv4.0) protocols to interpret high-resolution manometry (HRM) seeking to determine the value provided by the new swallowing maneuvers included in the last protocol. This is a study of diagnostic tests, evaluating concordance by consistency between the results obtained by the CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 protocols, in patients undergoing HRM. Concordance was assessed with the kappa test. Bland–Altman scatter plots, and Lin’s correlation-concordance coefficient (CCC) were used to assess the agreement between IRP measured with swallows in the supine and seated position or with solid swallows. One hundred thirty-two patients were included (65% women, age 53 ± 17 years). The most frequent HRM indication was dysphagia (46.1%). Type I was the most common type of gastroesophageal junction. The most frequent CCv4.0 diagnoses were normal esophageal motility (68.9%), achalasia (15.5%), and ineffective esophageal motility (IEM; 5.3%). The agreement between the results was substantial (Kappa 0.77 ± 0.05), with a total agreement of 87.9%. Diagnostic reclassification occurred in 12.1%, from IEM in CCv3.0 to normal esophageal motility in CCv4.0. Similarly, there was a high level of agreement between the IRP measured in the supine compared to the seated position (CCC0.92) and with solid swallows (CCC0.96). In conclusion, the CCv4.0 protocol presents a high concordance compared to CCv3.0. In the majority of manometric diagnoses there is no reclassification of patients with provocation tests. However, the more restrictive criteria of CCv4.0 achieve a better reclassification of patients with IEM.</jats:p>
      10Scopus© Citations 1
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Item type:Publication,
      1  1Scopus© Citations 5
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Item type:Publication,
    Impact of Evidence‐Based Stroke Care on Patient Outcomes: A Multilevel Analysis of an International Study
    (2019)
    MUÑOZ VENTURELLI, PAULA ANDREA  
    ;
    Xian Li
    ;
    Sandy Middleton
    ;
    Caroline Watkins
    ;
    LAVADOS GERMAIN, PABLO MANUEL  
    <jats:sec xml:lang="en"> <jats:title>Background</jats:title> <jats:p xml:lang="en"> The uptake of proven stroke treatments varies widely. We aimed to determine the association of evidence‐based processes of care for acute ischemic stroke ( <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">AIS</jats:styled-content> ) and clinical outcome of patients who participated in the HEADPOST (Head Positioning in Acute Stroke Trial), a multicenter cluster crossover trial of lying flat versus sitting up, head positioning in acute stroke. </jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec xml:lang="en"> <jats:title>Methods and Results</jats:title> <jats:p xml:lang="en"> Use of 8 <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">AIS</jats:styled-content> processes of care were considered: reperfusion therapy in eligible patients; acute stroke unit care; antihypertensive, antiplatelet, statin, and anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation; dysphagia assessment; and physiotherapist review. Hierarchical, mixed, logistic regression models were performed to determine associations with good outcome (modified Rankin Scale scores 0–2) at 90 days, adjusted for patient and hospital variables. Among 9485 patients with AIS, implementation of all processes of care in eligible patients, or “defect‐free” care, was associated with improved outcome (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18–1.65) and better survival (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CI</jats:styled-content> , 1.62–3.09). Defect‐free stroke care was also significantly associated with excellent outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0–1) (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CI</jats:styled-content> , 1.04–1.43). No hospital characteristic was independently predictive of outcome. Only 1445 (15%) of eligible patients with AIS received all processes of care, with significant regional variations in overall and individual rates. </jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec xml:lang="en"> <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title> <jats:p xml:lang="en"> Use of evidence‐based care is associated with improved clinical outcome in <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">AIS</jats:styled-content> . Strategies are required to address regional variation in the use of proven <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">AIS</jats:styled-content> treatments. </jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec xml:lang="en"> <jats:title>Clinical Trial Registration</jats:title> <jats:p xml:lang="en"> <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">URL</jats:styled-content> : <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.clinicaltrials.gov">https://www.clinicaltrials.gov</jats:ext-link> . Unique Identifier: <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">NCT</jats:styled-content> 02162017. </jats:p> </jats:sec>
      1  8Scopus© Citations 21
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Item type:Publication,
    Scopus© Citations 5  2  1
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Item type:Publication,
    Scopus© Citations 3  1  9
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Item type:Publication,
    Esofagitis eosinofílica: diagnóstico y manejo
    (2020)
    María Jesús Ballart
    ;
    Hugo Monrroy
    ;
    Mirentxu Iruretagoyena
    ;
    Alejandra Parada
    ;
    Javiera Torres
    Scopus© Citations 3  2
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Item type:Publication,
    Dysphagia screening and risks of pneumonia and adverse outcomes after acute stroke: An international multicenter study
    (2020)
    Menglu Ouyang
    ;
    Elizabeth Boaden
    ;
    Hisatomi Arima
    ;
    Pablo M Lavados
    ;
    Laurent Billot
    Dysphagia is associated with aspiration pneumonia after stroke. Data are limited on the influences of dysphagia screen and assessment in clinical practice. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Aims</jats:title><jats:p> To determine associations between a “brief” screen and “detailed” assessment of dysphagia on clinical outcomes in acute stroke patients. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p> A prospective cohort study analyzed retrospectively using data from a multicenter, cluster cross-over, randomized controlled trial (Head Positioning in Acute Stroke Trial [HeadPoST]) from 114 hospitals in nine countries. HeadPoST included 11,093 acute stroke patients randomized to lying-flat or sitting-up head positioning. Herein, we report predefined secondary analyses of the association of dysphagia screening and assessment and clinical outcomes of pneumonia and death or disability (modified Rankin scale 3–6) at 90 days. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p> Overall, 8784 (79.2%) and 3917 (35.3%) patients were screened and assessed for dysphagia, respectively, but the frequency and timing for each varied widely across regions. Neither use of a screen nor an assessment for dysphagia was associated with the outcomes, but their results were compared to “screen-pass” patients, those who failed had higher risks of pneumonia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.18–4.10) and death or disability (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.41–1.95). Similar results were evidence for the results of an assessment for dysphagia. Subsequent feeding restrictions were related to higher risk of pneumonia in patients failed dysphagia screen or assessment (aOR = 4.06, 95% CI = 1.72–9.54). </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p> Failing a dysphagia screen is associated with increased risks of pneumonia and poor clinical outcome after acute stroke. Further studies concentrate on determining the effective subsequent feeding actions are needed to improve patient outcomes.
      1Scopus© Citations 46