Hong Zhao1, Yan Han1, Ke-Rong Peng1, You-You Luo1, Jin-Dan Yu1, You-Hong Fang1, Jie Chen1,2, Jin-Gan Lou3,4. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, The Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310052 , China. 2. National Clinical Research Center for Child Health, The Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310052, China. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, The Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310052 , China. jingan@zju.edu.cn. 4. National Clinical Research Center for Child Health, The Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310052, China. jingan@zju.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare nasogastric (NG) feeding with nasojejunal (NJ) feeding when treating pediatric patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). METHODS: We performed a single-center, prospective, randomized, active-controlled trial involving 77 pediatric patients with AP from April 2014 to December 2017. The patients were randomized into two groups: the NG tube feeding group (34 patients) and the NJ tube feeding group (33 patients). The primary outcome measures included the enteral nutrition intolerance, the length of tube feeding time, the recurrent pain of pancreatitis and complications. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients with AP (31 patients for each group) came into the final analysis. No differences were found in baseline characteristics, pediatric AP score and computed tomography severity score between the two groups. Three (9.7%) patients in the NG group and one (3.2%) patient in the NJ group developed intolerance (relative risk = 3.00, 95% confidence interval 0.33-27.29, P = 0.612). The tube feeding time and length of hospital stay of the NG group were significantly shorter than those of the NJ group (P = 0.016 and 0.027, respectively). No patient died in the trial. No significant differences were found in recurrent pain, complications, nutrition delivery efficacy, and side effects between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: NG tube feeding appears to be effective and safe for acute pediatric pancreatitis compared with NJ tube feeding. In addition, high qualified, large sample sized, randomized controlled trials in pediatric population are needed.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare nasogastric (NG) feeding with nasojejunal (NJ) feeding when treating pediatric patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). METHODS: We performed a single-center, prospective, randomized, active-controlled trial involving 77 pediatric patients with AP from April 2014 to December 2017. The patients were randomized into two groups: the NG tube feeding group (34 patients) and the NJ tube feeding group (33 patients). The primary outcome measures included the enteral nutrition intolerance, the length of tube feeding time, the recurrent pain of pancreatitis and complications. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients with AP (31 patients for each group) came into the final analysis. No differences were found in baseline characteristics, pediatric AP score and computed tomography severity score between the two groups. Three (9.7%) patients in the NG group and one (3.2%) patient in the NJ group developed intolerance (relative risk = 3.00, 95% confidence interval 0.33-27.29, P = 0.612). The tube feeding time and length of hospital stay of the NG group were significantly shorter than those of the NJ group (P = 0.016 and 0.027, respectively). No patient died in the trial. No significant differences were found in recurrent pain, complications, nutrition delivery efficacy, and side effects between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: NG tube feeding appears to be effective and safe for acute pediatric pancreatitis compared with NJ tube feeding. In addition, high qualified, large sample sized, randomized controlled trials in pediatric population are needed.
Authors: Jan Stanisław Bukowski; Łukasz Dembiński; Marcin Dziekiewicz; Aleksandra Banaszkiewicz Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-08-22 Impact factor: 6.706