BACKGROUND: Nasoenteral tube feeding is often required in surgical patients, mainly because of delayed gastric emptying. Bedside electromagnetic (EM)-guided tube placement by specialized nurses might offer several advantages (e.g., reduced patient discomfort and costs) over conventional endoscopic placement. The aim of this study was to compare the success rate of EM-guided to endoscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in surgical patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed in 267 adult patients admitted to two gastrointestinal surgical wards who received a nasoenteral feeding tube by EM-guidance or endoscopy. Eighteen patients were excluded because of insufficient data. Patients were categorized according to the primary tube placement method. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy. Primary endpoint was successful tube placement at or beyond the duodenojejunal flexure. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were included, of which 90 patients underwent EM-guided and 159 patients underwent endoscopic tube placement. Both groups were comparable for baseline characteristics. Primary tube placement was successful in 74/90 patients (82 %) in the EM-guided group versus 140/159 patients (88 %) in the endoscopic group (P = 0.20). In patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy, success rates were significantly lower in the EM-guided group (58 vs. 86 %, P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in tube-related complications such as dislodgement or tube blockage. CONCLUSIONS: Bedside EM-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by specialized nurses did not differ from endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists regarding feasibility and safety in surgical patients with unaltered upper gastrointestinal anatomy.
BACKGROUND: Nasoenteral tube feeding is often required in surgical patients, mainly because of delayed gastric emptying. Bedside electromagnetic (EM)-guided tube placement by specialized nurses might offer several advantages (e.g., reduced patient discomfort and costs) over conventional endoscopic placement. The aim of this study was to compare the success rate of EM-guided to endoscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in surgical patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed in 267 adult patients admitted to two gastrointestinal surgical wards who received a nasoenteral feeding tube by EM-guidance or endoscopy. Eighteen patients were excluded because of insufficient data. Patients were categorized according to the primary tube placement method. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy. Primary endpoint was successful tube placement at or beyond the duodenojejunal flexure. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were included, of which 90 patients underwent EM-guided and 159 patients underwent endoscopic tube placement. Both groups were comparable for baseline characteristics. Primary tube placement was successful in 74/90 patients (82 %) in the EM-guided group versus 140/159 patients (88 %) in the endoscopic group (P = 0.20). In patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy, success rates were significantly lower in the EM-guided group (58 vs. 86 %, P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in tube-related complications such as dislodgement or tube blockage. CONCLUSIONS: Bedside EM-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by specialized nurses did not differ from endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists regarding feasibility and safety in surgical patients with unaltered upper gastrointestinal anatomy.
Authors: Mohammad Abu-Hilal; Anil K Hemandas; Mark McPhail; Gaurav Jain; Ioanna Panagiotopoulou; Tina Scibelli; Colin D Johnson; Neil W Pearce Journal: JOP Date: 2010-01-08
Authors: Julie E Stevens; Karen L Jones; Christopher K Rayner; Michael Horowitz Journal: Expert Opin Pharmacother Date: 2013-05-11 Impact factor: 3.889
Authors: Arja Gerritsen; Thijs de Rooij; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Olivier R Busch; Jacques J Bergman; Dirk T Ubbink; Peter van Duijvendijk; G Willemien Erkelens; I Quintus Molenaar; Jan F Monkelbaan; Camiel Rosman; Adriaan C Tan; Philip M Kruyt; Dirk Jan Bac; Elisabeth M Mathus-Vliegen; Marc G Besselink Journal: Trials Date: 2015-03-26 Impact factor: 2.279