Evaluation of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia in Elderly Patients with Pharyngeal Aberrant Internal Carotid Artery Using the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10)


Jafarov S., Isazade A., Koycu A., Beyazpinar G., BAHÇECİTAPAR M., Tuzuner A.

DYSPHAGIA, 2021 (Peer-Reviewed Journal) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume:
  • Publication Date: 2021
  • Doi Number: 10.1007/s00455-021-10318-z
  • Journal Name: DYSPHAGIA
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, BIOSIS, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE

Abstract

Pharyngeal aberrant internal carotid artery (PAICA) has been reported to be a cause of oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) in case reports. However, as there have been no clinical studies, the relationship between PAICA and OD is not clear. The aim of this study was to investigate the perception of OD in elderly PAICA patients using the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10). A study group (Group 1) was formed of patients diagnosed with PAICA from the visualization of a pulsatile mass in the pharynx in flexible fiberoptic endoscopic examination and carotid magnetic resonance angiography tests, and a control group (Group 2) was formed of age-matched healthy volunteers. The study group was subdivided as patients with unilateral PAICA (Group 1a) and patients with bilateral PAICA (Group 1b). The Turkish version of the EAT-10 was applied to all the participants. Total EAT-10 points of >= 3 were accepted as abnormal. Normal (< 3) and abnormal (>= 3) total EAT-10 points were determined in 88.9% (24/27) and 11.1% (3/27), respectively, of the control group, in 55.2% (16/29) and 44.8% (13/29) of Group 1, in 70.6% (12/17) and 29.4% (5/17) of Group 1a, and in 33.3% (4/12) and 66.7% (8/12) of Group 1b. A statistically significant difference was determined between the control group and Group 1 and Group 1b in respect of abnormal (>= 3) EAT-10 total points (p = 0.007, p = 0.001, respectively). No statistically significant difference was determined between the control group and Group 1a (p = 0.227). Problems (EAT point >= 1) in item 4 (swallowing solids takes extra effort) were experienced by 13 (44.8%) patients in Group 1, 9 (75%) patients in Group 1b, and 5 (18.5%) subjects in the control group (p < 0.05). These results demonstrated that unilateral PAICA does not significantly affect swallowing, whereas bilateral PAICA created a significant negative effect. These patients experience more problems when swallowing solid food.