The role of the Sapienza GLObal Bedside Evaluation of Swallowing after Stroke (GLOBE-3S) in the prevention of stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP)

17Citations
Citations of this article
33Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background and purpose: Stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP) affects 10 to 38% of patients in the acute phase of stroke. Stroke patients diagnosed with dysphagia have an 11-fold higher risk of developing SAP. Thus, identifying dysphagic patients through a highly accurate screening tool might be crucial in reducing the incidence of SAP. We present a case–control study designed to evaluate efficacy in reducing the risk of SAP between two swallowing screening tools, the classic water swallow test (WST) and a recently validated tool such as the GLOBE-3S (the Sapienza GLObal Bedside Evaluation of Swallowing after Stroke), which is a highly sensitive swallowing screening tool particularly accurate in detecting silent aspiration as well. Methods: We analyzed the occurrence of dysphagia in 100 acute stroke patients distributed in two groups: half were screened with WST and the other half with GLOBE-3S. Results: Dysphagia was diagnosed in 28 patients. The main result is that, among patients who passed the dysphagia screenings, none of those screened with the GLOBE-3S method developed pneumonia compared to 31.82% in the WST group. Discriminant function analysis (DFA) showed that NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and the dysphagia screening method (i.e., GLOBE-3S vs. WST) were the two main factors in the SAP’s predicting model and the only significant ones per se. Conclusions: The new GLOBE-3S screening test can reduce the risk of SAP compared to WST.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jannini, T. B., Ruggiero, M., Viganò, A., Comanducci, A., Maestrini, I., Giuliani, G., … Di Piero, V. (2022). The role of the Sapienza GLObal Bedside Evaluation of Swallowing after Stroke (GLOBE-3S) in the prevention of stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP). Neurological Sciences, 43(2), 1167–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-021-05449-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free