Literature DB >> 1738222

Equal aspiration rates from postpylorus and intragastric-placed small-bore nasoenteric feeding tubes: a randomized, prospective study.

R M Strong1, S C Condon, M R Solinger, B N Namihas, L A Ito-Wong, J E Leuty.   

Abstract

Postpylorus delivery of enteral feeding is perceived by many experts to be safer than intragastric delivery. To test this assumption, patients with similar Glasgow Coma Scores were given identical enteral formulas continuously via a 10-French nasoenteric tube, placed into the stomach or beyond the second portion of the duodenum. Observations were made for attainment of desired nutrition, bowel changes, and clinical signs of aspiration. Radiographs of the chest and abdomen were obtained every 3 days. If a tube migrated out of a chosen location, it was replaced. Thirty-three patients were studied. Seventeen patients were fed into the stomach and 16 patients were fed postpylorus. The mean duration of enteral feeding was 11.8 days for the gastric group and 10.9 days for the postpylorus group (p = NS). The time to deliver the desired kilocalories was 3.33 and 2.77 days (p = NS) for gastric and postpylorus-fed patients. Tubes displaced similarly in each group, gastric 0.647, postpylorus 0.750 per duration of feeding (p = NS). Chest radiographs met the criteria for aspiration pneumonia in 31.3% of gastric and 40% of postpylorus-fed patients (p = NS). Together, these data indicate that complications from enterally fed patients are equally common whether the distal port of the feeding tube is in the stomach or beyond the second portion of the duodenum.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1738222     DOI: 10.1177/014860719201600159

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr        ISSN: 0148-6071            Impact factor:   4.016


  18 in total

Review 1.  Enteral nutrition access devices.

Authors:  A Habib; D F Kirby
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  1999-08

2.  Management of dysphagia.

Authors:  Roy M Preshaw
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-03-30       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  Enteral nutrition and the critically ill.

Authors:  S A Shikora; A M Ogawa
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 4.  A comparison of early gastric and post-pyloric feeding in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kwok M Ho; Geoffrey J Dobb; Steven A R Webb
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2006-03-29       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 5.  Gastroenteric tube feeding: techniques, problems and solutions.

Authors:  Irina Blumenstein; Yogesh M Shastri; Jürgen Stein
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 6.  An integrated systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials evaluating nasogastric against postpyloris (nasoduodenal and nasojejunal) feeding in critically ill patients admitted in intensive care unit.

Authors:  M S Sajid; A Harper; Q Hussain; L Forni; K K Singh
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 4.016

Review 7.  Aspiration and infection in the elderly : epidemiology, diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Masayuki Kikawada; Toshihiko Iwamoto; Masaru Takasaki
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 3.923

Review 8.  Enteral nutrition in the critically ill patient: a critical review of the evidence.

Authors:  D K Heyland; D J Cook; G H Guyatt
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 9.  Gastric versus post-pyloric feeding: relationship to tolerance, pneumonia risk, and successful delivery of enteral nutrition.

Authors:  Andrew Ukleja; Md Sanchez-Fermin
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2007-08

10.  Synergy between acid and endotoxin in an experimental model of aspiration-related lung injury progression.

Authors:  Konstantin Tetenev; Mary E Cloutier; Jessica A von Reyn; Jennifer L Ather; James Candon; Gilman B Allen
Journal:  Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 5.464

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.