Purpose: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is highly common across the world. It is reported that over 90% of CAP in older adults may be due to aspiration. However, the diagnostic criteria for aspiration pneumonia (AP) have not been widely agreed. Is there a consensus on how to diagnose AP? What are the clinical features of patients being diagnosed with AP? We conducted a systematic review to answer these questions. Methods: We performed a literature search in MEDLINE^®, EMBASE, CINHAL, and Cochrane to review the steps taken toward diagnosing AP. Search terms for “aspiration pneumonia” and “aged” were used. Inclusion criteria were: original research, community-acquired AP, age ≥ 75 years old, acute hospital admission. Results: A total of 10,716 reports were found. Following the removal of duplicates, 7601 were screened, 95 underwent full-text review, and 9 reports were included in the final analysis. Pneumonia was diagnosed using a combination of symptoms, inflammatory markers, and chest imaging findings in most studies. AP was defined as pneumonia with some relation to aspiration or dysphagia. Aspiration was inferred if there was witnessed or prior presumed aspiration, episodes of coughing on food or liquids, relevant underlying conditions, abnormalities on videofluoroscopy or water swallow test, and gravity-dependent distribution of shadows on chest imaging. Patients with AP were older, more frailer, and had more comorbidities than in non-AP. Conclusion: There is a broad consensus on the clinical criteria to diagnose AP. It is a presumptive diagnosis with regards to patients’ general frailty rather than in relation to swallowing function itself.

Introduction: Aspiration pneumonia is increasingly recognised as a common condition. While antibiotics covering anaerobes are thought to be necessary based on old studies reporting anaerobes as causative organisms, recent studies suggest that it may not necessarily benefit prognosis, or even be harmful. Clinical practice should be based on current data reflecting the shift in causative bacteria. The aim of this review was to investigate whether anaerobic coverage is recommended in the treatment of aspiration pneumonia. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing antibiotics with and without anaerobic coverage in the treatment of aspiration pneumonia was performed. The main outcome studied was mortality. Additional outcomes were resolution of pneumonia, development of resistant bacteria, length of stay, recurrence, and adverse effects. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Results: From an initial 2523 publications, one randomised control trial and two observational studies were selected. The studies did not show a clear benefit of anaerobic coverage. Upon meta-analysis, there was no benefit of anaerobic coverage in improving mortality (Odds ratio 1.23, 95% CI 0.67–2.25). Studies reporting resolution of pneumonia, length of hospital stay, recurrence of pneumonia, and adverse effects showed no benefit of anaerobic coverage. The development of resistant bacteria was not discussed in these studies. Conclusion: In the current review, there are insufficient data to assess the necessity of anaerobic coverage in the antibiotic treatment of aspiration pneumonia. Further studies are needed to determine which cases require anaerobic coverage, if any.

Pneumonia is a common reason for admission afflicting frail older adults. Those who are the frailest are more likely to be provided with a diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia. This diagnosis has no clear definition and no clinical consensus. It is therefore time to stop attempting to differentiate between pneumonia type and use the term frailty-associated pneumonia.

Purpose: Little is known about the long-term and functional prognoses of older adults with pneumonia, which complicates their management. There is a common belief that aspiration is a poor prognostic factor; however, the diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia (AP) lacks consensus criteria and is mainly based on clinical characteristics typical of the frailty syndrome. Therefore, the poor prognosis of AP may also be a result of frailty rather than aspiration. This study investigated the impact of AP and other prognostic factors in older patients with pneumonia. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 75 years and older, admitted with pneumonia in 2021. We divided patients according to their initial diagnosis (AP or non-AP), compared outcomes using Kaplan–Meier curves, and used logistic regression to identify independent prognostic factors. Results: 803 patients were included, with a median age of 84 years and 52.7% were male. 17.3% were initially diagnosed with AP. Mortality was significantly higher in those diagnosed with AP than non-AP during admission (27.6% vs 19.0%, p = 0.024) and at 1 year (64.2% vs 53.1%, p = 0.018), with survival analysis showing a median survival time of 62 days and 274 days in AP and non-AP, respectively (χ² = 9.2, p = 0.002). However, the initial diagnosis of AP was not an independent risk factor for poor prognosis in multivariable analysis. Old age, frailty and cardio-respiratory comorbidities were the main factors associated with death. Conclusion: The greater mortality in AP may be a result of increased frailty rather than the diagnosis of aspiration itself. This supports our proposal for a paradigm shift from making predictions based on the potentially futile labelling of AP or non-AP, to considering frailty and overall condition of the patient.

Introduction: Dysphagia is a newly acknowledged multifactorial risk factor for the exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Effective screening methods are awaited. We performed a prospective study to evaluate the impact of musculature and breathing–swallowing discoordination on the exacerbation of COPD with a novel swallowing monitor using a piezoelectric sensor. Patients and Methods: This was the second part of a prospective study of patients with COPD from the Iizuka COPD cohort. Seventy patients with stable COPD underwent dysphagia screening, skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) and tongue pressure measurements, and swallowed 3 mL and 30 mL of water while wearing a swallowing monitor. Patients were followed for one year. Results: During the follow-up period, 28 patients experienced exacerbations (E group), and 42 had none (non-E group). There was no significant difference in tongue pressure measurements between the two groups. The SMI in the E group was significantly lower than that in the non-E group. Among the swallowing monitor measurements, the 3 mL I-SW% (the percentage of swallows in which inspiration preceded the swallow [out of ten 3 mL swallows]) was significantly lower in the E group than in the non-E group. Conclusion: Breathing–swallowing coordination is an independent factor related to the exacerbation of COPD. Not only the presence of discoordination but also the inability to produce an airway protection mechanism may contribute to more frequent aspiration and exacerbations.

In older adults, community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is often aspiration-related. However, as aspiration pneumonia (AP) lacks clear diagnostic criteria, the reported prevalence and clinical management vary greatly. We investigated what clinical factors appeared to influence the diagnosis of AP and non-AP in a clinical setting and reconsidered a more clinically relevant approach. Medical records of patients aged ≥75 years admitted with CAP were reviewed retrospectively. A total of 803 patients (134 APs and 669 non-APs) were included. The AP group had significantly higher rates of frailty, had higher SARC-F scores, resided in institutions, had neurologic conditions, previous pneumonia diagnoses, known dysphagia, and were more likely to present with vomiting or coughing on food. Nil by mouth orders, speech therapist referrals, and broad-spectrum antibiotics were significantly more common, while computed tomography scans and blood cultures were rarely performed; alternative diagnoses, such as cancer and pulmonary embolism, were detected significantly less. AP is diagnosed more commonly in frail patients, while aspiration is the underlying aetiology in most types of pneumonia. A presumptive diagnosis of AP may deny patients necessary investigation and management. We suggest a paradigm shift in the way we approach older patients with CAP; rather than trying to differentiate AP and non-AP, it would be more clinically relevant to recognise all pneumonia as just pneumonia, and assess their swallowing functions, causative organisms, and investigate alternative diagnoses or underlying causes of dysphagia. This will enable appropriate clinical management.