See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323788713

The Ice Chip Protocol: A Description of the Protocol and Case Reports

Article in Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups · March 2018

DOI: 10.1044/persp3.SIG13.28

CITATIONS READS
3 20,812

2 authors:

Jessica Pisegna Susan Langmore

Boston Medical Center Boston University
40 PUBLICATIONS 559 CITATIONS 106 PUBLICATIONS 6,508 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jessica Pisegna on 01 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups
SIG 13, Vol. 3(Part 1), 2018, Copyright © 2018 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

The Ice Chip Protocol: A Description of the Protocol

and Case Reports
Jessica M. Pisegna
Department of Otolaryngology, Boston Medical Center
Boston, MA
Speech-Language Pathology Sciences, Boston University School of Medicine
Boston, MA

Susan E. Langmore
Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Boston University Medical Center
Boston, MA
Disclosures
Financial: Jessica M. Pisegna has no relevant financial interests to disclose. Susan E. Langmore
has no relevant financial interests to disclose.
Nonfinancial: Jessica M. Pisegna has no relevant nonfinancial interests to disclose. Susan E.
Langmore has no relevant nonfinancial interests to disclose.

Purpose: There is limited information regarding the theoretical underpinnings of an Ice

Chip Protocol. This article aims to discuss its use in assessment and rehabilitation
of swallowing disorders.
Method: A brief outline of the Ice Chip Protocol has been published, but in the present
commentary, we thoroughly describe the protocol. We explain the rationale, indications for
use, steps, and expected outcomes. We also present 9 case reports of patients who presented
as nil per os for a swallow evaluation and received the Ice Chip Protocol.
Result: We demonstrate that the Ice Chip Protocol led to positive outcomes in the majority
of the case reports. In 77.8% of the cases (7/9), secretion amount and location improved.
Our anecdotal experiences suggest that it is a safe and successful protocol for both the
evaluation and rehabilitation dysphagia. However, there is no systematic evidence for support.
Conclusion: Clinicians and researchers are often asked to evaluate the swallows of
patients who are severely dysphagic and sometimes critically ill. Our experience suggests
that the Ice Chip Protocol is an effective and safe method, but it would greatly benefit from
being formally studied. This commentary is meant to encourage more formal investigations
of its outcomes.

For clinicians in the field of dysphagia, the use of ice chips for swallowing assessment and
rehabilitation is not a novel concept. However, despite the anecdotal use of ice chips, there is very
little empirical support in the literature.
The Effect of Water on the Lungs
The membranes of the human airway are made to facilitate transport of fluid in utero
while they are filled with fluid. Water-transporting proteins, called aquaporins, line the epithelia
and endothelia of the lungs and facilitate the passage of fluid across the lung’s lining. In adulthood,
high levels of aquaporins are still present, and the lungs remain highly permeable to water (Borok
& Verkman, 2002; Day et al., 2014; Verkman, Matthay, & Song, 2000).
Myriad literature endorses this premise, suggesting that trace aspiration of water does
not pose a serious risk for pneumonia (Feinberg, Knebl, & Tully, 1996; Feinberg, Knebl, Tully, &

28

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Segall, 1990; Langmore, 2001; Olson, 1970; Robbins et al., 2008; Simonelli et al., 2010; Splaingard,
Hutchins, Sulton, & Chaudhuri, 1988).
The Necessary but Insufficient Requirements for Aspiration Pneumonia
Three necessary conditions must co-occur to develop aspiration pneumonia, none of
which are sufficient in isolation. First, the material must be pathogenic, meaning a substance
that is harmful to the lungs: secretions with bacteria, food particles, stringent liquids, and
gastric contents. Second, aspiration must occur. It is impossible to get an aspiration pneumonia
without aspirating. In certain situations, this will be volume or location dependent. Similarly, a
trace amount of aspiration to the subglottic shelf in the superior trachea is not significant enough
to create an inflammatory response. In one study, only 38% of the patients who aspirated went
on to develop a pneumonia (Langmore et al., 1998). Third, the host’s defense must be unable
to process the aspirate. A history of lung disease, poor respiratory status, and a lowered immune
system are examples of a reduced defensive system. Thus, the necessary but individually insufficient
requirements for pneumonia are (a) a pathogenic aspirate must be (b) aspirated and (c) the host’s
defense system is unable to prevent colonization and subsequent infection (Langmore, 2011;
Langmore, Schatz, & Olsen, 1988; Rohmann, Tschernig, Pabst, Goldmann, & Dromann, 2011).
When all three factors occur, an aspiration pneumonia may develop.
Ideal Candidates for the Ice Chip Protocol: Who and Why
The ideal patient for the Ice Chip Protocol is someone with a suspected severe dysphagia
or an unknown swallowing ability. Ice chips are ideal when the clinician is not confident in the
patient’s ability to safely swallow and/or has advanced pulmonary disease. These patients are
likely to aspirate anything given to them; hence, the exam should be conservative with a benign
bolus such as an ice chip. We view any patient who is currently tube fed as a good candidate
for the Ice Chip Protocol because these patients may have a severe dysphagia and may not have
swallowed any food or liquid for an extended time. In fact, it has been shown that tube-fed
patients have a lower frequency of swallowing than orally fed patients, to the point where
secretions are not managed (Crary & Groher, 2006).
We also regard candidacy for the Ice Chip Protocol by what the patient’s current swallow
status is in terms of how frequently the swallow is engaged: normal, reduced, or nonuse, which
are operationally defined below and in Table 1.

Table 1. A schema to consider swallowing condition prior to the Ice Chip Protocol. We have found
that ice chips are the best way to start an evaluation for patients presenting with “reduced use” or
“nonuse” of the swallow.

Normal Use Reduced Use Nonuse

Normal frequency Swallowing is executed occasionally The swallow is rarely

(1–4 times per minute used, and when it is,
at rest a, plus all nutrition it is mostly reflexive
and hydration by mouth) Mild————————————Severe
Example: Example: Example:
Mild——————————————Severe
A patient with total oral An intubated patient
feeding A patient with a nasogastric Nothing by mouth
tube, supplementing with with exclusive
some food or liquids boluses feeding via
by mouth alternative means

Note. aMurray et al. (1996), Langmore (2001).

29

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 “Normal use” occurs in a patient who can swallow at a normal frequency without great
hindrance (about one to four per minute at rest; Langmore, 2001; Murray, Langmore, Ginsberg,
& Dostie, 1996). We define “reduced use” as executing a swallow less than someone with regular
oral feeds, with only occasional engagement (such as limited tastes of food/liquid). We believe
“reduced use” exists on a spectrum from mild to severe. Finally, “nonuse” of the swallow is
defined as almost exclusive nonuse of the swallow, as in an intubated patient or a surgical
patient who cannot volitionally execute a swallow and requires suctioning. When the swallow
is engaged in this case, it is mostly reflexive. Some authors in the intubation literature have
mentioned swallowing dysfunction occurs postextubation in part due to “muscle freezing” as a
consequence of nonuse while intubated (Barquist, Brown, Cohn, Lundy, & Jackowski, 2001).
Ideal patients for the Ice Chip Protocol are those who are eligible for trials of oral feeding but have
recently shown reduced use or nonuse of the swallow (see Table 1).
The Advantage of Ice
Ice chips have unique and beneficial characteristics. First, they are a small controllable
volume, ranging from the size of a pea to the size of a pencil eraser (~5 × 7 mm). We have measured
each ice chip to be approximately 1 ml of melted water. The clinician can easily control the amount
of bolus on the spoon and the amount taken by the patient because they are small and contained
entities.
Second, ice chips are a cohesive bolus. Ice chips can be easily manipulated and held in
the mouth. They allow for engagement of the oral preparatory phase of swallowing, which stimulates
cortical structures and their role in facilitating the transit of the bolus and initiation of the swallow
(Hiiemae & Palmer, 1999; Palmer, Rudin, Lara, & Crompton, 1992). They are easier to control than
a small amount of water and can be propelled into the pharynx before they melt. The patient’s
response to one ice chip in their mouth is very telling regarding the patient’s oral control and ability
to execute a volitional swallow.
Third, ice chips are a cold, familiar-tasting bolus. Patients frequently report that the cold
ice “tastes good.” In fact, one study demonstrated that access to water and ice chips were
significantly associated with improved quality of life (Karagiannis & Karagiannis, 2014). Behind
the enjoyment is a much more complicated process. A cold solid bolus stimulates thermal,
chemoreceptor, and tactile receptors in the mouth. Afferent pathways to brainstem, subcortical,
and cortical centers are activated as the ice is held in the oral cavity.
Fourth, we suggest that small ice chips are beneficial because they are relatively benign
if aspirated. Because of the very small size of the ice chips, one of them cannot block the glottis
and is therefore not a choking hazard.
The Ice Chip Protocol is based on the same tenants of any water protocol: Clean water, in
and of itself, is not harmful to the lungs (Holas, DePippo, & Reding, 1994; Robbins et al., 2008).
Water protocols have put forth that if a patient’s mouth is kept clean, then a small amount of
aspiration of water should not be harmful to the patient. We put forth that the same theory applies
to small and controlled volumes of ice chips and that ice chips hold additional advantages in
assessing and rehabilitating dysphagia.
The goal of this report is to describe the logistics of an Ice Chip Protocol and propose
guidelines to support clinical judgment. We postulate that the Ice Chip Protocol is a safe and
successful method to assess swallow ability and engage, or “wake up,” the swallowing system in
severely dysphagic patients who have been nil per os (NPO). It is hoped that future studies will
use the proposed standardized protocol to carry out the Ice Chip Protocol and formally investigate
its important clinical outcomes related to dysphagia.

30

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Method
Nine cases in an urban hospital were reviewed retrospectively to highlight a range of
patient types who received the Ice Chip Protocol. The cases included six men and three women
ranging in age from 22 to 81 years old with varying etiologies (see Table 2). For each patient, the
speech pathologist was consulted by the medical team to perform flexible endoscopic evaluation
of swallowing (FEES). All patients were strictly NPO prior to the evaluation. The Ice Chip Protocol
was administered to each patient as outlined below. A chart review was then performed to extract
recommendations and outcomes.

Table 2. Patient demographics.

Case Age (years), Patient status Medical diagnosis

gender

1 76, female Outpatient, SCCa of the oral cavity, s/p resection of the floor of the mouth
ambulatory with free flap, mandibulectomy, partial glossectomy
2 72, male Outpatient, SCCa of supraglottis and lung s/p completion of chemoradiation
ambulatory and radiation treatment
3 59, male Inpatient, Sepsis and altered mental status
nonambulatory
4 48, female Outpatient, Clival meningioma, cerebellar hemorrhage, and vestibular
ambulatory schwannoma, multiple cranial neuropathies and neurologic
deficits s/p suboccipital resection, and craniotomy, and
tracheotomy (uncapped)
5 22, male Outpatient, Cerebral palsy, spastic quadriplegia
nonambulatory
6 65, male Outpatient, Follicular ameloblastoma of right mandible s/p segmental
ambulatory mandibulectomy, right fibula osteocuteneous free flap, right
neck dissection, excision of right submandibular gland
7 82, female Inpatient, SCCa of the floor of mouth s/p manibulectomy, bilateral neck
nonambulatory dissection, fibula free flap & tracheotomy (decanulated inpatient)
8 73, male Inpatient, CABG x5 and left cerebellar, left precentral gyrus, and right
ambulatory occipital lobe stroke
9 81, male Outpatient, SCCa of the hard palate s/p mass excision (maxillectomy) with
nonambulatory bilateral neck dissection and tracheostomy

Note. CABG = coronary artery bypass grafting; SCCa = squamous cell carcinoma; s/p = status post.

Preparatory Work
In order to perform the Ice Chip Protocol, we required the patients to be alert and able
to sit upright. Vitals were monitored during the evaluation, especially in the acute inpatient
setting, in case there was an acute change in status. Oral suctioning was available, if needed.
Immediately prior to the Ice Chip Protocol, the oral cavity of each patient was cleaned using
tooth and gum brushing (with a suction if needed), tongue swabbing, suctioning, hard palate
scraping, and rinsing and spitting. Oral care is arguably the most important step to remove
pathogenic material that could potentially be aspirated. Oral care protocols have been thoroughly
documented elsewhere that are beyond the scope of this article (Carlaw et al., 2012; Chalmers,
King, Spencer, Wright, & Carter, 2005; Cuccio et al., 2012; Dickinson, 2012).

31

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Each Ice Chip Protocol was performed under the guidance of endoscopy (FEES) because it
provides a direct view of the larynx, a direct view of secretions, a direct view of ice chips, and is more
sensitive to detecting aspiration (Kelly, Drinnan, & Leslie, 2007; Pisegna & Langmore, 2016a, 2016b).
Procedure
The ice chips used in our protocols were sourced from the kitchen icemaker machine
on patient floors. Each ice chip was about 5 × 7 mm. We mixed a few spoonfuls of ice chips
with two drops of green food dye to enhance visualization of the ice chip bolus endoscopically.
1. Observation of Swallowing Anatomy and Secretions
Upon entry into the pharynx and before the Ice Chip Protocol, we noted the swallowing
anatomy, vocal fold mobility, and the patient’s ability to close the glottis with a cued cough or
phonation (Part 1 speech tasks of the FEES).
We rated secretions before the swallow because they have the potential to block the
bolus path; lead to penetration, aspiration, or both; and may accumulate with added boluses (see
Figure 1a). We rated them after the ice chip trials to indicate the success, or lack thereof, of the ice
chip trials in engaging the swallow and loosening (see Figure 1b), moving, and clearing secretions
(see Figure 1c) using a standardized rating tool (Marianjoy 5-point ordinal scale; Donzelli, Brady,
Wesling, & Craney, 2003).

Figure 1. Secretions (a) before, (b) during, and (c) after the Ice Chip Protocol in NPO patients in need
of a swallow evaluation.

32

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 2. Administration of Ice Chips: Three Trials
Trial 1: We put one-half to two ice chips (<2 ml fluid volume) on a clean spoon and
administered them with the following directions to the patient: “Take these ice chips, move
them around your mouth, and swallow all at once when you are ready.” The amount of ice to
start with required clinical judgment regarding the patient’s condition and ability within the
flexible structure of this protocol. During and after the first trial of ice chips, we observed the
following outcomes to build a clinical impression:

• Oral control
○ Bilateral lip closure; manipulation of the ice chips with the tongue; jaw movement.
○ Spillage: anterior spillage, laterality and amount; posterior spillage, laterality and amount; length of
spillage in seconds (some spillage is normal on liquids from 0 to 3 s to the valleculae and 0–1.5 s to
the piriform sinuses (Butler et al., 2011; Dua, Ren, Bardan, Xie, & Shaker, 1997; Saitoh et al., 2007;
Stephen, Taves, Smith, & Martin, 2005).
• Initiation of the swallow
○ Where was the head of the bolus when the swallow was triggered; was the swallow initiation delayed;
was it spontaneous or cued; brisk or effortful (i.e., pumping or slowed movements)?
• Airway closure
○ Did the epiglottis retroflex; did the laryngeal complex elevate?
• Penetration or aspiration
○ Penetration–Aspiration Scale (PAS 1–8; Rosenbek, Robbins, Roecker, Coyle, & Wood, 1996)
○ When did penetration or aspiration occur: before, during, or after the swallow; was the patient’s
reaction to penetration/aspiration (cough, throat clear, repeated swallowing) necessary, spontaneous,
or strong?
• Secretions
○ If secretions were present, were they mostly cleared, partly cleared, or not at all by the swallow; did
the ice chips thin the secretions; did they loosen and move; did the patient sense the secretions; was
suctioning required?
○ We wait to rerate the secretion scale formally (Donzelli et al., 2003) until after the end of the protocol,
not in between trials, because the loosening of secretions typically makes them worse before they can
be cleared.
• Pharyngeal clearance/residue
○ Was there compete and adequate white out?
○ How much of the melted ice chips remained; if there was some residue, where did it pool; how did
the patient manage them; were any strategies necessary and effective in clearing the pooling (e.g.,
double swallow, head turn)?
• The patient’s response
○ Ice chip trials usually make the patient more alert due to the coldness, wetness, and required engagement.
Was the patient more awake; did he or she express enjoyment over the ice chips or was his or her response
muted; what was the vocal quality like?

33

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 A critical aspect of the Ice Chip Protocol was that even if the outcomes of the first trial
are poor (i.e., the swallow is delayed or aspiration occurred), the trials continue. Reengaging the
swallowing mechanism often required more than one attempt, especially after prolonged NPO
status. Engaging the sensory and motor neural pathways may take multiple attempts, even over
several days, to recover the swallow. We must emphasize that clinicians may see aspiration.
Trial 2: We performed a second trial of one-half to two ice chips in the very same manner
regardless of the outcome of the first trial (an exception would be an emergency change in status/
alertness/vital signs). Again, we made note of the aspects described above, including oral control,
initiation, airway closure, and so forth.
Trial 3: We repeated one-half to two ice chips for a third time, regardless of the outcomes
of the first and second trial (exception: an emergency change in status/alertness/vital signs).
In other words, even if it did not go well on the first two trials, we continued with a third trial. We
made note of the events of the third trial for each of the outcome areas listed above, in addition
to any new clinical information.
3. Clinical Decision Making: A Decision Tree
After three trials of ice chips, we formed a clinical judgment about the patient’s ability
to swallow. Figure 2 depicts a decision tree based on our decision-making process. It is worth
repeating that each patient was taken on a case-by-case basis and the patient’s response was
closely monitored for acute changes. Other nonswallowing factors too abundant to list were
considered while building a clinical judgment (i.e., cognitive status, dependence for feeding,
medical conditions).

Figure 2. Decision making after the first three trials of ice chips.

Note. *Unless the patient is a candidate for a free water protocol, comfort measures only, or other
extenuating circumstances. NPO = nil per os; PO = per os; Rec = recommend.

34

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 From our experience, there are three overall impressions that could be made after three
trials of ice chips: (a) a good impression, (b) a fair/guarded impression, or (c) a poor impression.
The subjective labels of these results are intentional, as clinical impression is difficult to
specifically outline. The following text aims to describe each pathway in Figure 2 to combine
clinical impression with outcomes of the three administrations of ice chips.
“A Good Impression”: It’s going well.
Possible next steps include additional trials of ice chips, larger volumes of ice chips,
thin or nectar-thick liquid, or foods such as pureed solids. Each facility’s protocol for
other bolus trials may differ; a standardized protocol for FEES is described elsewhere
(Langmore, 2001).
• Complete or adequate oral control and manipulation
• No lengthy spillage anteriorly/posteriorly
• Quick and timely initiation of the swallow
• If aspiration occurred, a spontaneous cough/throat clear was successful at clearing
the aspirate
• Secretions reduced, if they were present
• The patient became more awake and alert
“A Fair/Guarded Impression”: It’s going ok.
If the clinical impression is more favorable (+), then other boluses could be trialed. If the
clinical impression is less favorable (–), then perhaps the patient requires more attempts
on ice to fully engage the swallow. In the case studies, it was not unusual for many trials
of ice to be carried out to clear oral and pharyngeal secretions.
• Reduced oral control
• Mild to moderate spillage anteriorly/posteriorly
• Delayed initiation of the swallow
• If aspiration occurs, a spontaneous or cued cough/throat clear is inconsistently
successful
• Same or reduced secretions and/or secretions are mobilized to be suctioned, coughed
up, or swallowed
• Each trial of ice chips seemed slightly better than the prior
“A Poor Impression”: It’s not going well.
After three trials of small ice chips, the clearest stopping guideline is if the patient cannot
execute initiation of the swallow, or if they become less alert. We may also stop if we see
three or more events of silent aspiration with no attempt to eject or unsuccessful ejection
of the bolus upon cueing. We recommend retrying the Ice Chip Protocol at a later time
(once the patient’s status improves).
• No initiation of the swallow (two to three times)
• Consistent spillage of whole ice chips into the larynx
• Aspiration with no spontaneous response for more than three times OR cued cough/
throat clear was unsuccessful OR silent aspiration occurred more than three times
• Excessive coughing resulting in shortness of breath

35

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 • Significant change in vitals to outside of normal limits
• Increase in amount of secretions, which are not cleared despite cueing
• An excessively gurgly voice with no success at spontaneous or cued clearing

Results
Table 3 describes each of the nine patients who began with NPO status and received the
Ice Chip Protocol. The length of NPO ranged from 7 days to 2.3 years, and all patients were
receiving nutrition, hydration, and medication via a feeding tube at the time of the evaluation.
Two experienced speech language pathologists reviewed the videos and determined clinical
recommendations. Aspiration was seen in five of nine cases. In six of the cases, clinical impression
of swallowing ability was determined to be fair/guarded, which is expected given the extended
length of NPO presented by all of the patients. However, the flow chart proposed for the Ice Chip
Protocol enabled the clinicians to follow a favorable (+) or unfavorable (−) impression of the swallowing
presentation, which assisted with the often borderline and difficult clinical decision making. In two
cases, the impression was “good,” and in one case, the impression was “poor.” In all but one case,
it was recommended to start taking at least ice chips or other boluses, and the one case (Case 7)
was complicated by many other factors during the inpatient course.

36

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Table 3. Descriptive outcomes of Ice Chip Protocol case studies (all performed under endoscopy).

Case Baseline Baseline Ice Chip Secretions Recommendations Follow-up

diet secretionsa Protocol after
protocola

1 • NPO since surgery •3 • “Fair/guarded impression (−)” •3 • 2–4 ice chips at a time, • Maintained good
(27 days) pathway to decision making 20 times per day health, no decline in
• Gtube dependent • Thick secretions • Use water spritzer pulmonary status
• Seen in outpatient • Aspiration seen on multiple throughout the day • At 2 monthsc, thick
clinic trials to loosen oral secretions phlegm was gone
• Head turn to right effective • Nutrition and (no longer needing
at reducing penetration/ medications via Gtubeb suction), thin liquids
aspiration • Return for continued in large volumes
• Severely reduced clearance swallow therapy PO, supplementing
nutrition via 2 cans
per day in Gtubeb
2 • NPO since surgery •2 • “Fair/guarded impression (−)” •2 • Small spoonfuls of ice • Patient did not start

37
(79 days) pathway to decision making chips throughout the on ice chips until
• Gtube dependent • Aspiration on first trial but day using SSGM 2nd visit, then began
• Seen in outpatient ejected with immediate, strong • All other nutrition, taking ice chips at
clinic cough hydration, and home
• A SSGM effective at medications via Gtubeb • Maintained good
eliminating aspiration • Return for continued health, no decline in
swallow therapy pulmonary status
• At 3rd visit, thin
liquids mastered
with SSGM
• At 4th visit, upgraded
to soft solids, thin
liquids liquid wash
with supersupraglottic
swallow
• At 4 months, taking
100% oral diet, Gtube
removed
(continued)

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 3 • NPO (8 days) •5 • “Fair/guarded impression (+)” •3 • Nectar-thick liquids • By discharge 2 weeks
• NGT dependent pathway to decision making and pureed solids in later, NGT had been
• Seen as inpatient • First 2 trials of 1 chip were 1/2 meal volumes removed and patient
absorbed by dry mouth, adequate • Supplement PO was on grounds and
oral stage intake with NGTb thin liquids
• 8 trials of 3–5 ice chips were • No decline in
administered, loosening oral/ pulmonary status
pharyngeal secretions
• Patient tried to clear secretions
with swallows, some suctioning
required with cueing to cough,
ultimately removed from larynx
• Secretions were penetrated
but not aspirated
• Further PO trials were carried
out after Ice Chip Protocol
(nectar-thick liquids and pureed
solids)
4 • NPO since surgery •3 • “Good impression” pathway •2 • 1 ice chip, 5 times • At 1 monthc, patient

38
(824 days; 2.3 years) to decision making per sitting, 3 times taking only ice chips
• Gtube dependent • Silent aspiration occurred per day, under close and on free water
• Seen in outpatient on first 2 trials of 2 ice chips, supervision with a protocol at nursing
clinic but a cued strong cough was cue to cough after home
effective every trial • At 4 months: taking
• No aspiration on subsequent • Nutrition and 1/4 teaspoon of puree
trials but poor management medications via Gtubeb • No decline in
of secretions and reduced • Return for continued pulmonary status
pharyngeal clearance swallow therapy
5 • NPO (for “a long •4 • “Good impression” pathway •1 • 2–4 ice chips at a • By 4th visit, patient
time”) to decision making time, 30 times per day demonstrated
• Gtube dependent • Spillage to piriform sinuses, • Return for continued improvement in
• Seen in outpatient but no aspiration seen on swallow therapy swallow initiation
clinic multiple trials of ice chips and was upgraded
• Further PO trials were carried to puree solids and
out after Ice Chip Protocol (thin thin liquids
liquid, nectar-thick liquid, and • No decline in
puree boluses) pulmonary status
(continued)

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 6 • NPO (14 days) •2 • “Fair/guarded impression (+)” •1 • Ground solids and • Patient did not return
• Gtube dependent pathway to decision making thin liquids for follow-upc
• Seen in outpatient • First trial of 1 chip loosened • Return for continued
clinic oral secretions, which were swallow therapy
swallowed
• On the second trial, penetration
to the vocal folds occurred
before the swallow, an immediate
strong, spontaneous cough
cleared it
• The third trial of ice was
swallowed briskly without
penetration/aspiration, or
any residue
• Further PO trials were carried
out after Ice Chip Protocol (thin
liquids and pureed, ground
solids)
7 • NPO (8 days) •5 • “Poor impression” pathway to •3 • Strict NPO • One month later,
• NGT dependent decision making • All other nutrition, patient was reevaluated

39
• Seen as inpatient • On first trial, pt aspirated hydration, and in outpatient setting,
spillage of melted ice before medications via NGTb had remained NPOc
swallow initiation, which had • Percutaneous • Swallow ability
to be cued endoscopic gastronomy improved, speech-
• No patient reaction, cued tube was placed due language pathologist
cough not successful at clearing to poor swallowing rec transition to oral
aspiration and pooled ice chip ability and complicated feeding with pureed
in piriform sinus hospital course solids and thin liquids
• On second trial, swallow • Continue to use
initiation was brisker, but silent Gtube as indicated by
aspiration occurred on residue other team members
after the swallow, a delayed
cough was weak an ineffective
• Third trial same as the second
• Severe residue of ice chips
remained, although initial
secretions were reduced
• Suctioning was required
• No further trials carried out
(continued)

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 8 • NPO (7 days) •4 • “Fair/guarded impression (+)” •2 • Nectar-thick liquids • About 1 month later,
• NGT dependent pathway to decision making by spoon only (<5 ml) pt was reevaluated in
• Seen as inpatient • First ice chip was absorbed by and 2–4 ice chips at a outpatient clinicc
mouth, pt was extremely dry time, throughout the • Rec nectar-thick
• Second and third ice chip day liquids and pureed
were swallowed but copious • Supplement PO solids
dry secretions loosened, cough intake with NGTb
was spontaneous and strong,
suctioning required but
successful
• Further PO trials were carried
out after Ice Chip Protocol (thin
liquids, nectar-thick liquids,
and pureed)
9 • NPO (20 days) •5 • “Fair/guarded impression (−)” •2 • 1 ice chip, 5 times • Patient did not return
• Gtube dependent pathway to decision making per sitting, 3 times for follow-upc
• Seen in outpatient • First trial of 1 chip loosened per day, under close
clinic oral secretions, which were supervision with a cue
swallowed to cough after every

40
• On the second trial, brisk trial
swallow, immediate strong, • Nutrition and
spontaneous cough on medications via Gtubeb
penetrating residue • Return for continued
• The third trial of ice same swallow therapy
as second
• Further ice chip trials were
carried out, pt successfully
coughed up thick yellow
secretions
• Other PO trials were carried
out after Ice Chip Protocol (thin
liquids and pureed)

Note. Gtube = gastronomy tube; NGT = nasogastric tube; NPO = nil per os; PO = per os; Pt = patient; rec = recommend; SSGM =
supersupraglottic maneuver.
a
Donzelli et al. (2003). bFor any decision making regarding calorie counting, means of alternative nutrition, and amount via NGT
of Gtube, we always defer to the other medical professionals to make those determinations (nutrition/dietary). cIn the outpatient
clinic, follow-up visits did not happen as frequently as requested.

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 The amount of secretions was greatly reduced by the Ice Chip Protocol, as demonstrated
in Figure 3, highlighting the baseline secretion score and the secretion score after the Ice Chip
Protocol. In no instances did the secretions get worse, but that was likely due to suctioning,
which was a goal of the protocol and an advantage to clear the pharynx for other trials. In 77.8%
of the cases (7/9), secretion amount and location improved.

Figure 3. Secretion ratings with the 5-point Marianjoy secretions rating scale at baseline before any
trials were carried out and after three administrations of ice chips, per the Ice Chip Protocol.

Long term follow-up data (diet maintenance, pulmonary status, quality of life) was limited
due to access to what was documented in the electronic medical records alone, and therefore, no
long-term outcomes could be investigated. However, it can be stated that none of the patients
who returned to clinic became significantly worse from the Ice Chip Protocol and none reported
recurrent aspiration pneumonias, hospitalization, or a worsening health status.
We highlight two of the case studies below:
Case 1: Aspiration was seen during and after the first three swallows as the ice chips
mixed with the secretions, but a cued throat clear ejected all secretions and water out of the
airway. Multiple trials of ice in larger volumes (up to five ice chips) were effective at clearing all
secretions, although there was moderate residue of the melted ice chips pooling in the piriform
sinuses. It was recommend that she take two to four ice chips at a time, 20 times per day, and
use water spritzer into her mouth throughout the day to loosen oral and pharyngeal secretions.
Within 2 months, her secretions were gone, and she was taking thin liquids without any problems.
Over 4 months, the patient began taking puree and thin liquids with onset of therapeutic trials.
She was started on semisolids foods, but because of a prolonged oral stage, she still required a
Gtube, which stayed in place until 8 months postsurgery when she was able to take enough PO.
Case 4: Silent aspiration was seen on the first two trials of ice chips, but a cued cough
was strong. No aspiration occurred on subsequent trials, but clearance of the ice chips was
reduced and required multiple swallows to clear the melted ice and secretions. It was recommended
that she receive aggressive oral care and be given single ice chips, five times per sitting, three times
per day under close supervision. A family member was taught how to cue the patient to take ice,
look for signs of a swallow, and then cue to cough. Upon follow-up, the patient remained pneumonia
free despite reports of frank aspiration out of the tracheostomy tube. At the 2-month follow-up, the
patient was receiving ice chips and was put on a free water protocol by the nursing home, remaining
pneumonia free. At the 4-month follow-up, the patient demonstrated the ability to take very small
volumes of puree for pleasure feeding. At 8 months, no pulmonary complications were reported.
41

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Discussion
The goal of this commentary was to describe the theoretical framework of a proposed Ice
Chip Protocol. Our clinical experience suggests that the Ice Chip Protocol is a safe and successful
protocol to both evaluate and rehabilitate dysphagia where other boluses would not have been
as successful. Our case studies demonstrated that the Ice Chip Protocol is effective in reducing
secretions and assessing the oral and pharyngeal stage of swallowing in a safe and functional
way. Furthermore, we demonstrated several anecdotal cases where ice chips were used in a
rehabilitative fashion and moved patients to recover the swallow. Other countries appear to
be using a similar technique involving an ice chip exercise, which is also used for swallowing
rehabilitation in severely dysphagic patients (A. Kaneoka, personal communication, April 10, 2015).
Outcomes of the Ice Chip Protocol are largely unstudied. Only one published study could be found:
a poster from 2011 describing two small cohorts of patients who took ice chips during a FEES
protocol. The authors found that aspiration on ice chips was predictive of aspiration on thin liquids
and also predictive of a diet recommendation (Kaszuba, Brady, Wesling, Donzelli, & Stewart, 2011).
That study’s findings demonstrate the advantage of using ice to assess for aspiration risk prior to
more difficult boluses. What remain unknown are other outcomes involving safety in using ice
chips for evaluation purposes and efficacy for rehabilitation.
Frequently asked questions from a wide range of clinicians have been collected to assist
in the dissemination and implementation of the Ice Chip Protocol. The answers, compiled in
the Supplementary Material, are based on the clinical experience from the authors’ combined
>40 years of experience using the Ice Chip Protocol. It is important to note that, in most cases,
taking ice chips was not the treatment goal but was viewed as a means of transitioning from an
NPO status to oral intake of liquids and food. In most cases, ice chips were viewed as a practice
bolus to stimulate the swallow mechanism and to build strength until other foods and liquids
could be taken safety.
The case studies we have documented here exemplify ideal candidates for the Ice Chip
Protocol: patients on NPO status who have reduced use or nonuse of the swallow. After prolonged
NPO, it is likely that the swallowing musculature will demonstrate atrophy and weakness. One
may wonder what length of time contributes to significant deconditioning. There is no clear
evidence to answer this question, but literature discussing skeletal muscle of the limbs suggests
that after 7–14 days of disuse, atrophy and weakness will set in (Baldwin, Paratz, & Bersten, 2013;
Bloomfield, 1997; Brooks & Myburgh, 2014; Clark, Fernhall, & Ploutz-Snyder, 2006; Narici &
de Boer, 2011). The neurological input to the muscular system will also become disengaged with
extended disuse. In a seminal study, Clark and colleagues (2006) found significant interplay
between the muscular system and the neurological system: Neural factors explained 48% of the
variation in strength loss over 4 weeks.
The theory supporting the Ice Chip Protocol is the same as that of water protocols. Taken
collectively, the outcomes of 12 clinical trials documenting water protocols do not support an
increased rate of pneumonia in dysphagic patients who take water orally with a structured
protocol in place. The trials included patients across the acute, subacute, and long-term
rehabilitation settings (Becker, Tews, & Lemke, 2008; Bernard, Loeslie, & Rabatin, 2012, 2015;
Bronson-Lowe et al., 2008; Carlaw et al., 2012; Frey & Ramsberger, 2011; Garon, Engle, & Orminston,
1997; Karagiannis, Chivers, & Karagiannis, 2011; Murray, Doeltgen, Miller, & Scholten, 2016;
Panther, 2005; Robbins et al., 2008; Scibilia, Hreha, Piscopo, Adler, & Barrett, 2016). Some of
the water protocol authors did discuss the use of unrestricted water and ice chips (Bernard et al.,
2012; Panther, 2005). In fact, one author noted, “In our practice, ice chips are more likely to be
the first step toward allowing water in the acute care environment” (Panther, 2005). In further
support, there are three systematic reviews that concluded that pneumonia is not significantly
different in those who take thin liquids with compensation versus those who take thickened
liquids (Gillman, Winkler, & Taylor, 2017; Kaneoka, Pisegna, Saito, & Langmore, 2016; Steele

42

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 et al., 2015). Despite these claims, no conclusions can be made about the use of ice chips themselves
because they are unstudied. We propose the use of ice chips as a protocol for clinicians to use
before, in supplementation to, or in replace of a water protocol to both assess and rehabilitate a
dysfunctional swallow.

Limitations
The reports here are anecdotal and are, as such, limited by a lack of a large controlled
sample size. They should be taken as anecdotal experiences alone and hopefully indicate the
need for greater study. Similarly, given the restrictions that accompany retrospective studies,
it could not be empirically determined if the Ice Chip Protocol resulted in shorter feeding tube
durations, reduced pneumonia incidence rates, earlier discharge from the hospital, or quality of
life improvements. Other factors could be influential, such as history of intubation, ambulatory
status, breathing abilities and reserve, disease course, and age. These variables would be
invaluable for future studies.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The Ice Chip Protocol is intended to assist clinicians in evaluating a swallow, especially
in patients with severe dysphagia or extended NPO status. In the majority of the case reports,
patients were given ice chips and demonstrated an overall decrease in pharyngeal secretions
and subsequent success in transitioning to food and liquids by mouth. Our experience suggests
that the Ice Chip Protocol is an effective and safe method, but it would greatly benefit from being
formally studied to determine the safety, utility, and outcomes. This commentary is meant
to encourage more formal investigations of the use of ice chips in swallowing evaluation and
rehabilitation using the proposed protocol.

References
Baldwin, C. E., Paratz, J. D., & Bersten, A. D. (2013). Muscle strength assessment in critically ill patients
with handheld dynamometry: An investigation of reliability, minimal detectable change, and time to peak
force generation. Journal of Critical Care, 28(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.03.001
Barquist, E., Brown, M., Cohn, S., Lundy, D., & Jackowski, J. (2001). Postextubation fiberoptic endoscopic
evaluation of swallowing after prolonged endotracheal intubation: A randomized, prospective trial. Critical
Care Medicine, 29(9), 1710–1713.
Becker, D., Tews, L., & Lemke, J. (2008). An oral water protocol for rehabilitation patients with dysphagia for
liquids. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language Hearing Association Convention, Chicago, IL.
Bernard, S., Loeslie, V., & Rabatin, J. (2012). Use of free water guidelines in critical illness survivors with
dysphagia. Paper presented at the Chest Convention, Atlanta, GA.
Bernard, S., Loeslie, V., & Rabatin, J. (2015). Use of a modified Frazier water protocol in critical illness
survivors with pulmonary compromise and dysphagia: A pilot study. The American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 70. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2016.016857
Bloomfield, S. A. (1997). Changes in musculoskeletal structure and function with prolonged bed rest.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 29(2), 197–206.
Borok, Z., & Verkman, A. S. (2002). Lung edema clearance: 20 years of progress: Invited review: Role of
aquaporin water channels in fluid transport in lung and airways. Journal of Applied Physiology (1985), 93(6),
2199–2206. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01171.2001
Bronson-Lowe, C., Leising, K., Brownson-Lowe, D., Lanham, S., Hayes, S., Ronquillo, A., & Blake, P. (2008).
Effects of a free water protocol for patients with dysphagia. Paper presented at the American Speech-
Language Hearing Association Convention, Chicago, IL.
Brooks, N. E., & Myburgh, K. H. (2014). Skeletal muscle wasting with disuse atrophy is multi-dimensional:
The response and interaction of myonuclei, satellite cells and signaling pathways. Frontiers in Physiology,
5, 99. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2014.00099

43

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Butler, S. G., Maslan, J., Stuart, A., Leng, X., Wilhelm, E., Lintzenich, C. R., . . . Kritchevsky, S. B. (2011).
Factors influencing bolus dwell times in healthy older adults assessed endoscopically. Laryngoscope,
121(12), 2526–2534. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.22372
Carlaw, C., Finlayson, H., Beggs, K., Visser, T., Marcoux, C., Coney, D., & Steele, C. M. (2012). Outcomes of
a pilot water protocol project in a rehabilitation setting. Dysphagia, 27(3), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00455-011-9366-9
Chalmers, J. M., King, P. L., Spencer, A. J., Wright, F. A., & Carter, K. D. (2005). The oral health assessment
tool–validity and reliability. Australian Dental Journal, 50(3), 191–199.
Clark, B. C., Fernhall, B., & Ploutz-Snyder, L. L. (2006). Adaptations in human neuromuscular function
following prolonged unweighting: I. Skeletal muscle contractile properties and applied ischemia efficacy.
Journal of Applied Physiology (1985), 101(1), 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01402.2005
Crary, M. A., & Groher, M. E. (2006). Reinstituting oral feeding in tube-fed adult patients with dysphagia.
Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 21(6), 576–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0115426506021006576
Cuccio, L., Cerullo, E., Paradis, H., Padula, C., Rivet, C., Steeves, S., & Lynch, J. (2012). An evidence-based
oral care protocol to decrease ventilator-associated pneumonia. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 31(5),
301–308. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCC.0b013e3182619b6f
Day, R. E., Kitchen, P., Owen, D. S., Bland, C., Marshall, L., Conner, A. C., . . . Conner, M. T. (2014). Human
aquaporins: Regulators of transcellular water flow. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 1840(5), 1492–1506.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagen.2013.09.033
Dickinson, H. (2012). Maintaining oral health after stroke. Nursing Standard, 26(49), 35–39. https://doi.
org/10.7748/ns2012.08.26.49.35.c9233
Donzelli, J., Brady, S., Wesling, M., & Craney, M. (2003). Predictive value of accumulated oropharyngeal
secretions for aspiration during video nasal endoscopic evaluation of the swallow. Annals of Otology,
Rhinology, and Laryngology, 112(5), 469–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940311200515
Dua, K. S., Ren, J., Bardan, E., Xie, P., & Shaker, R. (1997). Coordination of deglutitive glottal function and
pharyngeal bolus transit during normal eating. Gastroenterology, 112(1), 73–83.
Feinberg, M. J., Knebl, J., & Tully, J. (1996). Prandial aspiration and pneumonia in an elderly population
followed over 3 years. Dysphagia, 11(2), 104–109.
Feinberg, M. J., Knebl, J., Tully, J., & Segall, L. (1990). Aspiration and the elderly. Dysphagia, 5(2), 61–71.
Frey, K. L., & Ramsberger, G. (2011). Comparison of outcomes before and after implementation of a water
protocol for patients with cerebrovascular accident and dysphagia. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 43(3),
165–171. https://doi.org/10.1097/JNN.0b013e3182135adf
Garon, B., Engle, M., & Orminston, C. (1997). A randomized control study to determine the effects of
unlimited oral intake of water. Journal of Neurological Rehabilitation, 11, 139–148.
Gillman, A., Winkler, R., & Taylor, N. F. (2017). Implementing the free water protocol does not result in
aspiration pneumonia in carefully selected patients with dysphagia: A systematic review. Dysphagia, 32(3),
345–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9761-3
Hiiemae, K. M., & Palmer, J. B. (1999). Food transport and bolus formation during complete feeding
sequences on foods of different initial consistency. Dysphagia, 14(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/
PL00009582
Holas, M. A., DePippo, K. L., & Reding, M. J. (1994). Aspiration and relative risk of medical complications
following stroke. Archives of Neurology, 51(10), 1051–1053.
Kaneoka, A. (2015, May). [Ice Chip Exercise].
Kaneoka, A., Pisegna, J. M., Saito, H., & Langmore, S. E. (2016, February). Adverse events associated with
intake of thin liquids versus thick liquids in patients who aspirate: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Paper presented at the Dysphagia Research Society Annual Convention, Phoenix, AZ.
Karagiannis, M. J., Chivers, L., & Karagiannis, T. C. (2011). Effects of oral intake of water in patients with
oropharyngeal dysphagia. BMC Geriatrics, 11, 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-11-9
Karagiannis, M. J., & Karagiannis, T. C. (2014). Oropharyngeal dysphagia, free water protocol and quality
of life: An update from a prospective clinical trial. Hellenic Society of Nuclear Medicine, 17(Suppl. 1), 26–29.

44

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Kaszuba, S., Brady, S., Wesling, M., Donzelli, J., & Stewart, J. (2011). Clinical utility of blue ice chips with
patients who are NPO during the FEES: Pilot data. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language
Hearing Association.
Kelly, A. M., Drinnan, M. J., & Leslie, P. (2007). Assessing penetration and aspiration: How do videofluoroscopy
and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing compare? Laryngoscope, 117(10), 1723–1727. https://
doi.org/10.1097/MLG.0b013e318123ee6a
Langmore, S. E. (2001). Endoscopic evaluation and treatment of swallowing disorders (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Thieme.
Langmore, S. E. (2011). Why I like the free water protocol. Perspectives: Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders,
20, 116–120. https://doi.org/10.1044/sasd20.4.116
Langmore, S. E., Schatz, K., & Olsen, N. (1988). Fiberoptic endoscopic examination of swallowing safety:
A new procedure. Dysphagia, 2(4), 216–219.
Langmore, S. E., Terpenning, M. S., Schork, A., Chen, Y., Murray, J. T., Lopatin, D., & Loesche, W. J.
(1998). Predictors of aspiration pneumonia: How important is dysphagia? Dysphagia, 13(2), 69–81.
https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00009559
Murray, J., Doeltgen, S., Miller, M., & Scholten, I. (2016). Does a Water protocol improve the hydration
and health status of individuals with thin liquid aspiration following stroke? A randomized controlled trial.
Dysphagia, 31(3), 424–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9694-x
Murray, J., Langmore, S. E., Ginsberg, S., & Dostie, A. (1996). The significance of accumulated oropharyngeal
secretions and swallowing frequency in predicting aspiration. Dysphagia, 11(2), 99–103.
Narici, M. V., & de Boer, M. D. (2011). Disuse of the musculo-skeletal system in space and on earth.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 111(3), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-010-1556-x
Olson, M. (1970). The benign effects on rabbits’ lungs of the aspiration of water compared with 5 percent
glucose or milk. Pediatrics, 46(4), 538–547.
Palmer, J. B., Rudin, N. J., Lara, G., & Crompton, A. W. (1992). Coordination of mastication and swallowing.
Dysphagia, 7(4), 187–200.
Panther, K. (2005). The Frazier free water protocol. Perspectives: Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders,
14, 4–9.
Pisegna, J. M., & Langmore, S. E. (2016a). Clinician ratings of residue depend on the instrumental evaluation.
Paper presented at the Dysphagia Research Society, Chicago, IL.
Pisegna, J. M., & Langmore, S. E. (2016b). Parameters of instrumental swallowing evaluations: Describing
a diagnostic dilemma. Dysphagia, 31(3), 462–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9700-3
Robbins, J., Gensler, G., Hind, J., Logemann, J. A., Lindblad, A. S., Brandt, D., . . . Miller Gardner, P. J. (2008).
Comparison of 2 interventions for liquid aspiration on pneumonia incidence: A randomized trial. Annals of
Internal Medicine, 148(7), 509–518.
Rohmann, K., Tschernig, T., Pabst, R., Goldmann, T., & Dromann, D. (2011). Innate immunity in the human
lung: Pathogen recognition and lung disease. Cell and Tissue Research, 343(1), 167–174. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00441-010-1048-7
Rosenbek, J. C., Robbins, J. A., Roecker, E. B., Coyle, J. L., & Wood, J. L. (1996). A Penetration–Aspiration
Scale. Dysphagia, 11(2), 93–98.
Saitoh, E., Shibata, S., Matsuo, K., Baba, M., Fujii, W., & Palmer, J. B. (2007). Chewing and food consistency:
Effects on bolus transport and swallow initiation. Dysphagia, 22(2), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00455-006-9060-5
Scibilia, S., Hreha, K., Piscopo, C., Adler, U., & Barrett, A. M. (2016). Implementing a free water protocol in
an inpatient rehabilitation facility: Outcomes and care transitions. Paper presented at the Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation.
Simonelli, M., Ruoppolo, G., de Vincentiis, M., Di Mario, M., Calcagno, P., Vitiello, C., . . . Gallo, A. (2010).
Swallowing ability and chronic aspiration after supracricoid partial laryngectomy. Otolaryngology-Head and
Neck Surgery, 142(6), 873–878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2010.01.035
Splaingard, M. L., Hutchins, B., Sulton, L. D., & Chaudhuri, G. (1988). Aspiration in rehabilitation patients:
Videofluoroscopy vs bedside clinical assessment. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 69(8),
637–640.

45

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Steele, C. M., Alsanei, W. A., Ayanikalath, S., Barbon, C. E., Chen, J., Cichero, J. A., . . . Wang, H. (2015).
The influence of food texture and liquid consistency modification on swallowing physiology and function:
A systematic review. Dysphagia, 30(1), 2–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-014-9578-x
Stephen, J. R., Taves, D. H., Smith, R. C., & Martin, R. E. (2005). Bolus location at the initiation of the
pharyngeal stage of swallowing in healthy older adults. Dysphagia, 20(4), 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00455-005-0023-z
Verkman, A. S., Matthay, M. A., & Song, Y. (2000). Aquaporin water channels and lung physiology.
American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology, 278(5), L867–L879.

History:
Received July 30, 2017
Revised October 08, 2017
Accepted November 15, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1044/persp3.SIG13.28

46

Downloaded From: https://perspectives.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 03/18/2018

Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
View publication stats