Ruth England

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the ability of a bedside swallowing assessment to reliably exclude aspiration following acute stroke. SUBJECTS: Consecutive patients admitted within 24 h of stroke onset to two hospitals. METHODS: A prospective study. Where possible, all patients had their ability to swallow assessed on the day of admission by both a doctor and a speech and language therapist using a standardized proforma. A videofluoroscopy examination was conducted within 3 days of admission. RESULTS: 94 patients underwent videofluoroscopy; 20 (21%) were seen to be aspirating, although this was not detected at the bedside in 10. In 18 (22%) of the patients the speech and language therapist considered the swallow to be unsafe. In the medical assessment, 39 patients (41%) had an unsafe swallow. Bedside assessment by a speech and language therapist gave a sensitivity of 47%, a specificity of 86%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 50% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 85% for the presence of aspiration. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify the optimum elements of the bedside assessments for predicting the presence of aspiration. A weak voluntary cough and any alteration in conscious level gave a sensitivity of 75%, specificity of 72%, PPV of 41% and NPV of 91% for aspiration. CONCLUSION: Bedside assessment of swallowing lacks the necessary sensitivity to be used as a screening instrument in acute stroke, but there are concerns about the use of videofluoroscopy as a gold standard. The relative importance of aspiration and bedside assessment in predicting complications and outcome needs to be studied.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of an antireflux stent with that of a standard open stent in preventing symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux in patients with inoperable distal esophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients with inoperable distal esophageal tumors underwent placement of either a standard open or an antireflux stent across the cardia. Stents were allocated randomly before assessment of the stricture. All patients were followed up prospectively by the departmental research nurses. Technical and clinical success, reflux symptoms, complications, and reintervention rates were assessed. P values of observed differences were calculated by using the chi(2) and log-rank tests as appropriate. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 100%. Improvement in dysphagia was identical in both groups (three points on a five-point scale). Twenty-four (96%) of 25 patients with standard open stents had symptoms of esophageal reflux; 19 (76%) of 25 required treatment. Three (12%) of 25 patients with antireflux stents reported esophageal reflux; one (4%) of 25 required treatment. This difference was significant (P <.001). There was no significant difference in survival, complications, or reintervention rate. One case of late esophageal perforation occurred in each group. One patient died of aspiration within 24 hours after insertion of a standard open stent; no procedure-related deaths occurred with the antireflux stent. CONCLUSION: This antireflux stent is as safe and effective as the standard open stent in relieving malignant dysphagia and was successful in reducing symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux.

The efficacy of endoscopic treatment in primary sclerosing cholangitis has not been clearly established. This report presents endoscopic intervention in 53 consecutive patients with this disorder. Pertinent data were abstracted from the GI-TRAC database, medical records, and cholangiograms, and clinical follow-up was obtained by telephone interview of the subjects. Assessed treatment outcomes were clinical symptom, liver function test, and cholangiographic appearance. Between 1986 and 1993, 85 patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis underwent successful ERCP, of which 36 men and 17 women underwent 100 therapeutic endoscopic procedures. Forty-three of 50 dilations, 37 of 38 stentings, 8 of 8 nasobiliary tube placements, and 11 of 17 stone extractions were technically successful. These treatments were complicated by cholangitis or pancreatitis in 15 patients. Clinical follow-up was obtained in 50 of 53 patients who had undergone 85 procedures (median follow-up of 31 months): 28 patients felt better, 21 felt the same, and 1 felt worse. Liver function tests obtained within 3 months of the endoscopic treatment were significantly improved compared with pretreatment values (P < .001). Cholangiograms showed improvement in 36% of the patients, no change in 51%, and the effect of therapy could not be assessed in 13%. Overall, 41 of 53 patients (77%) had improvements of their clinical symptoms, liver function tests, or cholangiograms.