BACKGROUND: Nasoenteric feeding tubes may easily become dislodged due to patient mental status, transfers, or positional changes. Nasal bridles were introduced to provide a better, more reliable system to secure these tubes. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of nasal bridles compared with the traditional method of adhesive tape alone in securing enteral feeding tubes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiple databases were searched (October 2013). All studies that evaluated the use of nasal bridles in adult patients were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis for the outcomes from use of a nasal bridle vs the more traditional method of adhesive tape alone for securing nasoenteric tubes was analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of dislodgement, skin complications, and sinusitis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1. RESULTS: Six studies (n = 594) met the inclusion criteria. Use of a nasal bridle for securing enteral tubes resulted in a statistically significant reduction in tube dislodgement compared with traditional adhesive tape alone (odds ratio [OR], 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10–0.27; P < .01). The use of nasal bridles was associated with a higher rate of skin complications compared with traditional adhesive tape (OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 1.79–10.23; P < .01). Incidence of sinusitis was no different between the 2 groups (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.03–2.28; P = .22). CONCLUSION: Nasal bridles appear to be more effective at securing nasoenteric tubes and preventing dislodgement than traditional use of tape alone.
BACKGROUND: Nasoenteric feeding tubes may easily become dislodged due to patient mental status, transfers, or positional changes. Nasal bridles were introduced to provide a better, more reliable system to secure these tubes. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of nasal bridles compared with the traditional method of adhesive tape alone in securing enteral feeding tubes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiple databases were searched (October 2013). All studies that evaluated the use of nasal bridles in adult patients were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis for the outcomes from use of a nasal bridle vs the more traditional method of adhesive tape alone for securing nasoenteric tubes was analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of dislodgement, skin complications, and sinusitis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1. RESULTS: Six studies (n = 594) met the inclusion criteria. Use of a nasal bridle for securing enteral tubes resulted in a statistically significant reduction in tube dislodgement compared with traditional adhesive tape alone (odds ratio [OR], 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10–0.27; P < .01). The use of nasal bridles was associated with a higher rate of skin complications compared with traditional adhesive tape (OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 1.79–10.23; P < .01). Incidence of sinusitis was no different between the 2 groups (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.03–2.28; P = .22). CONCLUSION: Nasal bridles appear to be more effective at securing nasoenteric tubes and preventing dislodgement than traditional use of tape alone.
Authors: Susan Armijo-Olivo; Carla R Stiles; Neil A Hagen; Patricia D Biondo; Greta G Cummings Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Stephen A McClave; Robert G Martindale; Vincent W Vanek; Mary McCarthy; Pamela Roberts; Beth Taylor; Juan B Ochoa; Lena Napolitano; Gail Cresci Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Rainer Wirth; Rainer Dziewas; Anne Marie Beck; Pere Clavé; Shaheen Hamdy; Hans Juergen Heppner; Susan Langmore; Andreas Herbert Leischker; Rosemary Martino; Petra Pluschinski; Alexander Rösler; Reza Shaker; Tobias Warnecke; Cornel Christian Sieber; Dorothee Volkert Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 4.458