2018
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-018-8794-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is oral feeding compatible with an unresponsive wakefulness syndrome?

Abstract: Oral feeding that implies a full and complex oral phase could probably be considered as a sign of consciousness. However, we actually do not know which components are necessary to consider the swallowing conscious as compared to reflex. We also discussed the importance of swallowing assessment and management in all patients with altered state of consciousness.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0
3

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
18
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Oral feeding implies a full and complex oral phase, which as a whole is considered a sign of consciousness. However, it is not known which of its components are necessary to infer the presence of 'conscious' swallowing as opposed to reflex [49].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Oral feeding implies a full and complex oral phase, which as a whole is considered a sign of consciousness. However, it is not known which of its components are necessary to infer the presence of 'conscious' swallowing as opposed to reflex [49].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our second hypothesis is that the subscores (oral phase and pharyngeal phase) and the total score are related to the patient's level of consciousness. Moreover, based on previous studies ( 13 , 15 ), we expect that UWS patients will be at level 0 for oral phase items 1, 3, and 4 of the SWADOC-scored: no mouth opening at spoon approach, no spontaneous lip prehension, and no appropriate tongue propulsion.…”
Section: Methods and Analysismentioning
confidence: 95%
“…First, we examined literature in the field of consciousness and swallowing, and looked for existing scales (deductive method). The construction of the tool was inspired by actual knowledge on dysphagia in DOC patients based on the few studies dedicated to swallowing in DOC patients ( 13 , 15 , 18 , 20 ).…”
Section: Methods and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Scales akin to the CRS-R yet customized to specific settings, such as intensive care, are emerging [33]. The utility of even more subtle clinical signs suggestive of preserved responsiveness is increasingly recognized: for instance, low-cost bedside markers that lack sufficient formal evidence but, nevertheless, appear promising include command following as assessed by automated pupillometry [34,35]; resistance to eye opening [36]; habituation of the auditory startle reflex [37]; quantitative assessment of visual tracking [38,39]; standardized rating of spontaneous motor behavior [40]; possibility of oral feeding [41]; exploitation of vegetative responses, such as increased salivation following gustatory stimuli [42], olfactory sniffing [43], or modulations of the cardiac cycle [44,45]; evidence of circadian rhythms [46]; and observations made by nursing staff [47]. Simple clinical tools may provide substantial insights-carinal stimulation (by tracheal suctioning in an intubated or tracheostomized patient [48]) can produce intense arousal and improve motor responsiveness-suggesting the potential for progress in the acute phase or (potentially) responsiveness to pharmacological arousal agents in the chronic phase.…”
Section: Tiermentioning
confidence: 99%