OBJECTIVE: This review evaluates the efficacy and safety of dysphagia interventions for patients with prolonged endotracheal intubation (⩾48 h) in critical care units.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, OVID, CINAHL, Wanfang (China), CNKI (China), and ProQuest Dissertations for studies published up to December 31, 2023.
METHODS: Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized trials, and cohort studies comparing dysphagia rehabilitation - such as swallowing stimulation, swallowing and respiratory muscle exercise, and neuromuscular electrical stimulation - with standard care or no treatment. The primary outcomes assessed were dysphagia severity, time to resume oral intake, and incidence of aspiration and aspiration pneumonia.
METHODS: Detailed information on study design, setting, participant demographics, interventions, and outcomes was systematically extracted.
RESULTS: Our analysis included ten studies with a total of 1031 participants. The findings demonstrate a significant reduction in dysphagia severity, time to oral intake and the risk of aspiration pneumonia, and an improvement in quality of life among patients receiving swallowing therapy. However, no substantial difference was found in nutritional status. Limited data availability necessitated a descriptive presentation of outcomes like the risk of aspiration, ICU/hospital stay duration, pharyngeal/oral residue severity, and intervention-related adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence for the effectiveness of dysphagia interventions in critically ill patients with prolonged endotracheal intubation is limited. There is a pressing need for future research, particularly high-quality RCTs employing standardized outcome measures, to substantiate these findings.

Background: To date, there is no conclusive evidence that transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation (TNMES) benefits patients with post-stroke dysphagia (PSD). In addition, the optimal TNMES electrode placement has not been well-established. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to investigate these two research gaps. Methods: Five major databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through January 2022. Effect sizes were computed using Hedges’ g statistic, which were then entered into the random-effects model to obtain pooled effect estimates. Results: Twenty-four RCTs met the eligibility criteria. On the improvement of swallowing function, TNMES alone was not superior to conventional swallowing therapies (CSTs); combined therapy of TNMES and CSTs significantly surpassed CSTs alone (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.68 to 1.14, p < 0.0001; I2 = 63%). Moreover, significant pooled effect sizes were observed in subgroups with horizontal electrode placement above the hyoid bone (SMD = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.16; I2 = 0%) and horizontal electrode placement just above and below the hyoid bone (SMD = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.14; I2 = 0%). The largest pooled effect size was observed in the subgroup that individualized electrode placement according to dysphagia evaluation (SMD = 1.65, 95% CI: 0.38 to 2.91; I2 = 90%). Conclusion: TNMES should be used in combination with CSTs for PSD. Horizontal electrode placement should target suprahyoid muscles or both suprahyoid and thyrohyoid muscles.

To determine the effectiveness of dysphagia interventions compared to standard care in improving oral intake and reducing aspiration for adults in acute and critical care.
We searched electronic literature for randomised and quasi-randomised trials and bibliography lists of included studies to March 2020. Study screening, data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis used fixed effects modelling. The systematic review protocol is registered and published.
We identified 22 studies (19 stroke, 2 intensive care stroke and 1 general intensive care) testing 9 interventions and representing 1700 patients. Swallowing treatment showed no evidence of a difference in the time to return to oral intake (n = 33, MD (days) - 4.5, 95% CI - 10.6 to 1.6, 1 study, P = 0.15) (very low certainty) or in aspiration following treatment (n = 113, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.45, 4 studies, I2 = 0%, P = 0.45) (low certainty). Swallowing treatment showed evidence of a reduced risk of pneumonia (n = 719, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.89, 8 studies, I2 = 15%, P = 0.004) (low certainty) but no evidence of a difference in swallowing quality of life scores (n = 239, MD - 11.38, 95% CI - 23.83 to 1.08, I 2 = 78%, P = 0.07) (very low certainty).
There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of swallowing treatments in the acute and critical care setting. Clinical trials consistently measuring patient-centred outcomes are needed.