Literature DB >> 15297085

The nasal loop provides an alternative to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in high-risk dysphagic stroke patients.

Mark R Anderson1, Marion O'Connor, Peter Mayer, Denis O'Mahony, Jeremy Woodward, Kate Kane.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In the management of dysphagic stroke patients, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies (PEGs) are frequently sited early due to the failure of nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding, with NGTs becoming displaced in over 58% of cases. PEG insertion is a procedure with significant mortality and morbidity. We adapted a novel technique of securing NGTs (a nasal loop) which is non-invasive, allows successful NG feeding and may avoid the need for PEG placement. AIMS: To show that nasal loops result in improved delivery of enteral nutrition. To compare the outcome and complication rate of nasal loop fed patients with those undergoing PEG feeding.
METHODS: A 6 month prospective audit of dysphagic stroke patients who were referred for PEG. All patients who were referred with failed NG feeding within 28 days of presentation were offered a nasal loop. Patients who were 28 days post-stroke had a PEG placed if appropriate. The daily feed intake was monitored before and after nasal loop placement. Complication rates and patient outcomes were documented at 2 week and 3 month follow-up.
RESULTS: Nasal loop group: 14 patients had a nasal loop for a median of 15 days. The median daily feed provided was 0% before nasal loop and 100% after. Four patients went on to recover normal swallowing, 4 patients died and 6 later proceeded to PEG. PEG group: Seven patients proceeded direct to PEG, 1 died and 6 were alive and PEG fed at 3 months. There were 6 complications from PEG insertion. No patients recovered normal swallowing.
CONCLUSIONS: Nasal loops are safe, well tolerated, and effective at delivering full enteral nutrition. Nasal loops allow time for patients who may recover normal swallowing to do so, and thus avoid a PEG. Nasal loops avoid unnecessary PEG insertion in those with a poor prognosis who will not ultimately survive their initial stroke. Copyright 2003 Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15297085     DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2003.09.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Nutr        ISSN: 0261-5614            Impact factor:   7.324


  4 in total

Review 1.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances.

Authors:  Claudio A R Gomes; Régis B Andriolo; Cathy Bennett; Suzana A S Lustosa; Delcio Matos; Daniel R Waisberg; Jaques Waisberg
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-05-22

Review 2.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric feeding in older individuals with non-stroke dysphagia: a systematic review.

Authors:  M H Jaafar; S Mahadeva; K Morgan; M P Tan
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.075

3.  Is looped nasogastric tube feeding more effective than conventional nasogastric tube feeding for dysphagia in acute stroke?

Authors:  Jessica R Beavan; Simon Conroy; Jo Leonardi-Bee; Tim Bowling; Catherine Gaynor; John Gladman; Dawn Good; Peter Gorman; Rowan Harwood; Jan Riley; Tracey Sach; Wayne Sunman
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 2.279

4.  Guideline clinical nutrition in patients with stroke.

Authors:  Rainer Wirth; Christine Smoliner; Martin Jäger; Tobias Warnecke; Andreas H Leischker; Rainer Dziewas
Journal:  Exp Transl Stroke Med       Date:  2013-12-01
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.