The 8-point Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) was introduced to the field of dysphagia in 1996 and has become the standard method used by both clinicians and researchers to describe and measure the severity of airway invasion during swallowing. In this article, we review the properties of the scale and explore what has been learned over 20 years of use regarding the construct validity, ordinality, intervality, score distribution, and sensitivity of the PAS to change. We propose that a categorical revision of the PAS into four levels of increasing physiological severity would be appropriate. The article concludes with a discussion of common errors made in the statistical analysis of the PAS, proposing that frequency distributions and ordinal logistic regression approaches are most appropriate given the properties of the scale. A hypothetical dataset is included to illustrate both the problems and strengths of different statistical approaches.

SAD in healthy women increased with changes in chemesthetic stimuli, older age, and in supertasters versus nontasters. It is unclear at this stage if increased SAD is a helpful mechanistic change (potentially protective against aspiration) or a maladaptive change (associated with aspiration). Future research should use these chemesthetic changes in bolus properties to assess if increased SAD decreases aspiration in patients with dysphagia while accounting for genetic taste differences.

Ethanol added to barium elicited longer SAD compared to plain barium, but not the other chemesthetic conditions. Older women had a longer SAD than younger women in all conditions. These findings may influence design of future studies examining effects of various stimuli on SAD.

The use of topical lidocaine during FEES may impair swallowing ability in patients with dysphagia, but this result does not achieve statistical significance. Topical nasal anesthesia significantly reduces subjective pain and discomfort and improves tolerance during FEES.

Objectives/Hypothesis To assess the effects of a typical otolaryngologic dose of 1 mL of 4% lidocaine on penetration aspiration scale scores and participant discomfort during flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. Study Design A prospective pilot study. Methods Twenty healthy participants consumed 12 swallows consisting of graduated volumes of milk, water, pudding, and cracker in anesthetized and nonanesthetized conditions. Each participant was randomly selected to begin with the anesthetized or nonanesthetized condition. Each participant returned within 7 days to repeat the study in the other condition. Digital recordings of their evaluations were scored via the penetration‐aspiration scale in a blinded fashion. Participants recorded their discomfort and tolerance of each flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. Results The anesthetized condition yielded significantly worse swallowing function (P = .001) than the nonanesthetized condition. The nonanesthetized condition yielded greater discomfort and pain during the procedure (P = .006, .018), greater pain during insertion and removal of the endoscope (P = .002, .003) and less overall tolerance (P = .016) than the anesthetized condition. Conclusions A typical otolaryngologic anesthetic dose of 1 mL of 4% lidocaine during flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing predisposed healthy young adults to higher penetration aspiration scale scores (less safe swallowing) than the nonanesthetized condition; however, the anesthetic reduced discomfort and provided better overall tolerance. Future studies need to evaluate the effects of lower doses of lidocaine (0.2 and 0.5 mL) on swallowing function and comfort. Level of Evidence 4. Laryngoscope, 2012