The 3-ounce water swallow test is frequently used to screen individuals for aspiration risk. Prior research concerning its clinical usefulness, however, is confounded by inadequate statistical power due to small sample sizes and varying methodologies. Importantly, research has been limited to a few select patient populations, thereby limiting the widespread generalizability and applicability of the 3-ounce test. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical utility of the 3-ounce water swallow test for determining aspiration status and oral feeding recommendations in a large and heterogeneous patient population. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) was performed in conjunction with the 3-ounce water swallow test on 3000 participants with a wide range of ages and diagnoses. A total of 1151 (38.4%) passed and 1849 (61.6%) failed the 3-ounce water swallow test. Sensitivity of the 3-ounce water swallow test for predicting aspiration status during FEES = 96.5%, specificity = 48.7%, and false positive rate = 51.3%. Sensitivity for identifying individuals who were deemed safe for oral intake based on FEES results = 96.4%, specificity = 46.4%, and false positive rate = 53.6%. Passing the 3-ounce water swallow test appears to be a good predictor of ability to tolerate thin liquids. However, failure often does not indicate inability to tolerate thin liquids, i.e., low specificity and high false-positive rate. Use of the 3-ounce water swallow test alone to make decisions regarding safety of liquid intake results in over-referral and unnecessary restriction of liquid intake for nearly 50% of patients tested. In addition, because 71% of participants who failed the 3-ounce water swallow test were deemed safe for an oral diet, nonsuccess on the 3-ounce water swallow test is not indicative of swallowing failure. The clinical utility of the 3-ounce water swallow test has been extended to include a wide range of medical and surgical diagnostic categories. Importantly, for the first time it has been shown that if the 3-ounce water swallow test is passed, diet recommendations can be made without further objective dysphagia testing.

This study examined the effects of tracheostomy cuff deflation and one-way speaking valve placement on swallow physiology. Fourteen nonventilator-dependent patients completed videofluoroscopic swallow studies (VFSS) under three conditions: (1) cuff inflated, (2) cuff deflated, and (3) one-way valve in place. Four additional patients with cuffless tracheostomy tubes completed VFSS with and without the one-way valve in place. All swallows were analyzed for the severity of penetration/aspiration using an 8-point penetration-aspiration scale. Seven preselected swallow duration measures, extent of hyolaryngeal elevation and anterior excursion, and oropharyngeal residue were also determined. Scores on the penetration-aspiration scale were not significantly affected by cuff status, i.e., inflation or deflation. However, one-way valve placement significantly reduced scores on the penetration-aspiration scale for the liquid bolus. Patients who are unable to tolerate thin liquids may be able to safely take thin liquids when the valve is in place. However, one-way valve placement may not be beneficial for all patients. Clinicians who complete VFSS with tracheostomized patients should include several bolus presentations with a one-way speaking valve in place before making any decisions regarding the use of the valve as a means to reduce aspiration.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations for aspiration pneumonia have doubled among older adults. Using a bedside water swallow test (WST) to screen for swallowing-related aspiration can be efficient and cost-effective for preventing additional comorbidities and mortality. We evaluated screening accuracy of bedside WSTs used to identify patients at risk for dysphagia-associated aspiration.

No abstract

The purpose of this prospective, double-blinded, multirater, systematic replication study was to investigate agreement for aspiration risk, in the same individual, between videofluoroscopic swallow studies (VFSS) and the Yale Swallow Protocol. Participants were 25 consecutive adults referred for dysphagia testing who met the inclusion criteria of completion of a brief cognitive assessment, oral mechanism examination, and no tracheotomy tube. First, all participants were administered the Yale Swallow Protocol by two experienced speech-language pathologists trained in protocol administration. Failure criteria were inability to drink the entire amount, interrupted drinking, or coughing during or immediately after drinking. Second, all participants completed a VFSS within 5-10 min of protocol administration. A speech-language pathologist, blinded to protocol results, reviewed the VFSS to determine aspiration status in a binary (yes/no) manner. Inter-rater agreement between two speech-language pathologists was 100 % for identification of aspiration risk with the Yale Swallow Protocol. Inter-rater agreement between the speech-language pathologist and the radiologist for identification of aspiration status with VFSS was 100 %. Twenty percent of VFSS recordings were viewed again 3-6 months after initial data collection, and intrarater agreement for identification of thin liquid aspiration was 100 %. Sensitivity for the Yale Swallow Protocol = 100 %, specificity = 64 %, positive predictive value = 78 %, and negative predictive value = 100 %. Importantly, all participants who passed the protocol did not aspirate during VFSS. Multiple, double-blinded raters and VFSS as the reference standard agreed with previous research with a single, nonblinded rater and FEES as the reference standard for identification of aspiration risk. The clinical usefulness and validity of the Yale Swallow Protocol for determining aspiration risk in a small sample size of male participants has been confirmed. Future research is needed with a larger and more heterogeneous population sample.