Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Risk factors for oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) in elderly patients are mainly central nervous system (CNS) and structural organic diseases or presbyphagia. We analysed the OD prevalence and association of OD with multimorbidity and polypharmacy using real-life data to complete this spectrum, with a focus on further and iatrogenic risk. This was a cross-sectional retrospective study based on a random sample of 200 patients admitted to a geriatric hospital. Data analysis included diagnoses, the detailed list of drugs, and an intense clinical investigation of swallowing according to Stanschus to screen for OD in each patient. The mean patient age was 84 ± 6.5 years. The prevalence of OD was 29.0%, without an effect of age, but a higher rate was found in men and in nursing home residents and an elevated risk of pneumonia. OD risk was slight in diabetes mellitus and COPD, and pronounced in CNS diseases. A relevant OD association was found, even after adjusting for CNS diseases, with antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, anti-Parkinson drugs, antidepressants, and antiepileptics. Further risk of OD was found with beta-blockers, alpha-blockers, opioids, antiemetics, antivertiginosa or antihistamines, metoclopramide, domperidone, anticholinergics, loop diuretics, urologics, and ophthalmics. From real-life data in patients with and without CNS diseases, we identified drug groups associated with a risk of aggravating/inducing OD. Restrictive indications for these drugs may be a preventative contribution, requiring implementation in dysphagia guidelines and an integrative dysphagia risk scale that considers all associated and cumulative medication risks in addition to diseases.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.