Literature DB >> 20579197

Effectiveness of the auscultatory and pH methods in predicting feeding tube placement.

Ayşe San Turgay1, Leyla Khorshid.   

Abstract

AIMS AND
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine the effectiveness of the auscultatory and pH methods in predicting feeding tube location in critically ill patients.
BACKGROUND: There is confusion about how nurses should asses feeding tubes location at the bedside. The most common method for determining tube location is the auscultatory method. It is known that auscultation is an unreliable method and additional data relating to bedside methods are needed to assist nurses in making a decision regarding tube location.
DESIGN: A methodological study.
METHODS: The sample consisted of 44 new insertions of feeding tubes. Data from a total of 44 auscultations relating to tube position and gastrointestinal aspirates for pH were obtained from 32 critically ill adult patients ranging in age from 38-87 years. Results from the auscultatory and pH tests were compared with the location of the tube as determined by radiography. A total of 44 feeding tube applications were investigated using the auscultatory and pH methods and concurrently with X-rays to determine the feeding tube position. Nurses used the auscultatory method to predict tube position, a concurrent researcher aspirated fluid from the feeding tube, and samples were tested for pH within five minutes of radiographs taken to determine tube location. pH was measured with a test strip.
RESULTS: Mean pH level in the gastrointestinal aspirates was 4.23 (SD 1.20). Approximately 89% of the pH strip readings from gastrointestinal fluid were between 0-5. A pH of <5 successfully identified 90.4% of the 44 feeding tube cases.
CONCLUSION: The pH method is effective in determining the feeding tube position, but the auscultatory method is not effective in determining the feeding tube position. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Simple bedside assessment of gastrointestinal aspirate pH is useful for predicting feeding tube position.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20579197     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03191.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Nurs        ISSN: 0962-1067            Impact factor:   3.036


  6 in total

Review 1.  Naso-enteric Tube Placement: A Review of Methods to Confirm Tip Location, Global Applicability and Requirements.

Authors:  S A Milsom; J A Sweeting; H Sheahan; E Haemmerle; J A Windsor
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Nurses' Competency and Challenges in Enteral feeding in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and High Dependency Units (HDU) of a referral hospital, Malawi.

Authors:  C Mula
Journal:  Malawi Med J       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 0.875

3.  Nasogastric tube in mechanical ventilated patients: ETCO2 and pH measuring to confirm correct placement. A pilot study.

Authors:  Samuele Ceruti; Simone Dell'Era; Francesco Ruggiero; Giovanni Bona; Andrea Glotta; Maira Biggiogero; Edoardo Tasciotti; Christoph Kronenberg; Gianluca Lollo; Andrea Saporito
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 3.752

4.  The effectiveness of ultrasonography in verifying the placement of a nasogastric tube in patients with low consciousness at an emergency center.

Authors:  Hyung Min Kim; Byung Hak So; Won Jung Jeong; Se Min Choi; Kyu Nam Park
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2012-06-12       Impact factor: 2.953

5.  Intraoperative Gastric Tube Intubation: A Summary of Case Studies and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Michael Long; Melissa Machan; Luis Tollinche
Journal:  Open J Anesthesiol       Date:  2017-03

6.  CLiP, catheter and line position dataset.

Authors:  Jennifer S N Tang; Jarrel C Y Seah; Adil Zia; Jay Gajera; Richard N Schlegel; Aaron J N Wong; Dayu Gai; Shu Su; Tony Bose; Marcus L Kok; Alex Jarema; George N Harisis; Chris-Tin Cheng; Helen Kavnoudias; Wayland Wang; Anouk Stein; George Shih; Frank Gaillard; Andrew Dixon; Meng Law
Journal:  Sci Data       Date:  2021-10-28       Impact factor: 6.444

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.