A species comparison of videofloroscopic metrics of swallowing in healthy dogs and cats.

Authors

Megan Grobman, Elizabeth Luciani, Carol Reinero

Published in

Journal of veterinary internal medicine. Volume 40. Issue 5. Sep 01, 2026.

Abstract

Videofluoroscopic swallow studies (VFSS) are the criterion standard for diagnosing dysphagia in veterinary species. However, a lack of normative swallowing variables in cats hinders assessment of cats with potential aerodigestive disease. Species variation in swallowing could lead to over- and under-interpretation of findings on VFSS, resulting in misdiagnosis.
Compare differences in objective swallowing metrics between cats and dogs using VFSS. We hypothesize that cats will show differences in objective swallowing metrics on VFSS compared with dogs.
Healthy adult cats (n = 13) and dogs (n = 12) without clinical signs (CS) of respiratory or alimentary disease.
Prospective, cross-sectional study. Cats and dogs underwent standardized VFSS. All were evaluated according to 16 objective metrics and compared between species. Between group comparisons were made using Mann-Whitney-U, T-test, or Fischer's exact test with a P < .05 significance level for all comparisons.
Cats had significantly longer inter-swallow intervals, shorter pharyngeal transit times, and more pharyngeal swallows to generate primary peristalsis compared with dogs (P < .05). Cats were also more likely to have esophageal volume accumulation and slowing of distal esophageal transit time compared with dogs (P < .05). Physiologic reflux was identified in 2 (15.4%) cats vs 6 (50%) dogs. Pathologic penetration-aspiration (P-A score: 7; aspiration without attempt to cough) was found in 1 cat despite a lack of respiratory or alimentary CS.
Species variation should be considered when interpreting VFSS. In 1 cat, occult tracheal aspiration of contrast (P-A score 7) was detected without accompanying cough.

PMID:
42955828
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 30 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.