Question: Is there any current research on weaning protocols and the protocol for children with moderate to severe dysphagia and silent aspiration?
Catherine’s answer:
The team at Boston Children’s has provided us with a wealth of research to help inform our practice. This paper referenced below suggests a protocol for weaning thickened fluids via clinical data. Its implications are far reaching, and its recommendations require critical thinking.
Wolter NE, Hernandez K, Irace AL, Davidson K, Perez JA, Larson K, Rahbar R. A Systematic Process for Weaning Children with Aspiration from Thickened Fluids. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Jan 1;144(1):51-56.
Like any other protocol, the key, I think, is considering when to utilize a protocol as a guide, and considering when not to; that is, when doing so may adversely affect the risk-benefit ratio. My physician mentors over the years have referred to this process as the “art and science of medicine”. It requires us to ask how we thoughtfully apply the findings of any study to our clinical reasoning for each patient individually, to minimize risk of adverse events.
Clearly our repeat studies according to the AAP must be completed with thoughtful justification and careful attention to risk-benefit ratio, especially with infants. It is best practice as stated in the article that “children should be transitioned to non-thickened diets as soon as it is safe to do so.”
However, reducing fluid thickness solely “based on a patient’s’ clinical response” is worrisome to me.
In pediatrics, like in adult care, patient A is not the same as patient B, even though they both have been placed on thickened liquids for clinically sound reasons. Those infants/children with more complex co-morbidities, those who silently aspirated, and those with more precarious swallowing pathophysiology would potentially have greater risk for airway invasion with changes based on clinical data alone. And there may not be clinical suspicion that the wean increases risk, as the SWP proceeds. Universal application of the SWP without a very clear consideration regarding these fragile high-risk feeders may inadvertently increase risk for airway invasion.
Duncan et al in their 2018 study (Duncan, D. R., Mitchell, P. D., Larson, K., & Rosen, R. L. (2018). Presenting signs and symptoms do not predict aspiration risk in children. The Journal of pediatrics, 201, 141-146.) reported that “Presenting symptoms are varied in patients with aspiration and cannot be relied upon to determine which patients have aspiration on VFSS. The CFE (clinical feeding evaluation) does not have the sensitivity to consistently diagnose aspiration”. Their findings would likely apply to post-swallow study decisions made without benefit of objective data, and that is worrisome.
Perhaps more worrisome is the possible implication from the findings that the value of a VFSS is to identify bolus misdirection and aspiration, rather than to objectify swallowing physiology and pathophysiology as a basis for optimal interventions and their modification. The risk-benefit ratio of a repeat VFSS must indeed be carefully considered, but we must also consider the critical impact of that objective data, about physiology, on any changes in interventions we might consider.
The more I learn, the less black and white answers I have, and I think that is good. For each patient, we will need to continue to develop an algorithm for that patient, that best minimizes risk, in the setting of that child’s unique co-morbidities, history, and the nature of the swallowing pathophysiology objectified. Pausing to consider all the pieces and reflect, will always be the key.
I hope this is helpful.
Question:
