BACKGROUND:Jejunal feeding is an attractive means for delivering nutrients to critically ill patients. Nasojejunal tubes may have different advantages and disadvantages that may have important clinical implications. METHODS: To compare the suitability of 2 different nasojejunal feeding tubes (Tube A, Dobbhoff; Tube B, Freka-Trelumina) for use by endoscopists and nursing staff, a randomized, controlled, prospective trial was performed in 60 patients. The primary end point was time required for tube placement. Secondary end points were successful placement and nursing problems encountered during clinical use. Results of upper endoscopy were also recorded. RESULTS: Placement took significantly longer with Tube A than Tube B (95% CI for median [11.5, 20.0] minutes vs. [5.5, 7.5] minutes; p < 0.001), and was less successful (73.3% vs. 90%; p = 0.18). Nursing problems occurred significantly more often with Tube A compared with Tube B (11 vs. 1; p < 0.001). Tube B stayed in place significantly longer than Tube A (37 days vs. 21 days; p = 0.034). In 45% of the cases, upper endoscopy provided a diagnosis of potential therapeutic relevance. CONCLUSIONS: Selection of a nasojejunal tube for endoscopic placement has significant implications with respect to time required for placement, duration of tube usage and the practicability for nursing staff. Diagnostic upper endoscopy performed concomitantly often reveals findings of clinical importance.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Jejunal feeding is an attractive means for delivering nutrients to critically illpatients. Nasojejunal tubes may have different advantages and disadvantages that may have important clinical implications. METHODS: To compare the suitability of 2 different nasojejunal feeding tubes (Tube A, Dobbhoff; Tube B, Freka-Trelumina) for use by endoscopists and nursing staff, a randomized, controlled, prospective trial was performed in 60 patients. The primary end point was time required for tube placement. Secondary end points were successful placement and nursing problems encountered during clinical use. Results of upper endoscopy were also recorded. RESULTS: Placement took significantly longer with Tube A than Tube B (95% CI for median [11.5, 20.0] minutes vs. [5.5, 7.5] minutes; p < 0.001), and was less successful (73.3% vs. 90%; p = 0.18). Nursing problems occurred significantly more often with Tube A compared with Tube B (11 vs. 1; p < 0.001). Tube B stayed in place significantly longer than Tube A (37 days vs. 21 days; p = 0.034). In 45% of the cases, upper endoscopy provided a diagnosis of potential therapeutic relevance. CONCLUSIONS: Selection of a nasojejunal tube for endoscopic placement has significant implications with respect to time required for placement, duration of tube usage and the practicability for nursing staff. Diagnostic upper endoscopy performed concomitantly often reveals findings of clinical importance.