Dysphagia Management and Outcomes in Elderly Stroke Patients with Malnutrition Risk: Results from Chinese Stroke Center Alliance

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the effectiveness of dysphagia screening and subsequent swallowing rehabilitation in elderly stroke patients with malnutrition risk. Patients and Methods Based on the Chinese Stroke Center Alliance (CSCA) from August 1, 2015 to July 21, 2019, we compared the in-hospital adverse outcomes among stroke patients (including ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage) over 70 years old with and without dysphagia screening. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were the composite endpoint of discharge against medical advice (DAMA) or in-hospital death. Results Among 365,530 stroke patients ≥ 70 years old with malnutrition risk in the CSCA, documented dysphagia screening was performed for 288,764 (79.0%) participants. Of these, 41,482 (14.37%) patients had dysphagia, and 33,548 (80.87%) patients received swallowing rehabilitation. A total of 1,694 (0.46%) patients experienced in-hospital death. After adjustment for traditional risk factors, dysphagia screening was associated with a low risk of all-cause mortality in stroke patients [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI):0.65–0.87]. Compared to patients with dysphagia who did not receive swallowing rehabilitation, patients reveiving swallowing rehabilitation had a reduced risk of in-hospital death (aOR:0.39, 95% CI: 0.33–0.46). Additionally, dysphagia screening had a lower risk for the composite endpoint of DAMA or in-hospital death (aOR:0.83,95% CI: 0.80–0.87), as did subsequent swallowing rehabilitation (aOR:0.43,95% CI: 0.40–0.47). Similar results were observed in the sensitivity analysis through inverse probability of treatment weighting, propensity score matching, and excluding patients without National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores. A similar association was observed between dysphagia management and adverse clinical outcomes in ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage patients. Conclusion Dysphagia screening and swallowing rehabilitation were associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital death and composite outcome of DAMA or in-hospital death for stroke patients with malnutrition risk. Future research should concentrate on improving the quality of medical care for dysphagia management to improve patients’ outcomes.

Does ICU admission dysphagia independently contribute to delirium risk in ischemic stroke patients? Results from a cohort study

“…This in turn leads to a decrease in serum albumin levels. The presence of malnutrition can further deteriorate the patient’s physiological state and negatively impact neurological function, thereby increasing the risk of delirium [ 44 ]. Wang et al demonstrated that early implementation of protein supplementation effectively reduced mortality in critically ill stroke patients, underscoring the importance of ensuring adequate nutritional availability for the management and recovery of acutely ill patients [ 45 ].…”

Prevalence and risk factors of stroke-related sarcopenia at the subacute stage: A case control study

“…Therefore, this vicious circle between dysphagia, malnutrition, and muscle atrophy may result in easy development of sarcopenia. After the stroke onset, malnutrition occurs in 8.2–49.% patients, and dysphagia occurs in 24.3–52.6% ( 40 ). Nasogastric feeding was significantly associated with sarcopenia after adjusting for sex, age, NIHSS, the cognitive level, complications, comorbidity, rehabilitation time, and time from the stroke onset to hospitalization ( 40 ).…”

Clinical and organisational quality indicators for the optimal management of acute ischaemic stroke in the era of thrombectomy: a scoping review and expert consensus study

“…Of the clinical quality indicators, 12 related to safety and referred to the management of stroke risk factors and complications and included the indicator with the highest frequency of occurrence (19): dysphagia screening 19 28–31 34–41 43 45–49. Four indicators were grouped under effectiveness to assess health outcomes or achieve a care or service objective.…”