Pneumothorax following nasogastric feeding tube insertion in a tracheostomized patient after bilateral lung transplantation

Respiratory symptoms due to a twisted nasogastric tube: A case report

Insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) is generally considered safe; however, it is not without risk, and in cases of misplacement, complications and even death may occur. In this article, we reported a case of NGT misplacement in a 75-year-old male, which resulted in aspiration pneumonia. We also reviewed published cases of NGT misplacement. Clinicians should pay enough attention to the confirmation of the proper placement of an NGT. A systematic approach for NGT insertion and confirmation is required to prevent misplacement.

Randomized Trial to Compare Nasoduodenal Tube and Nasogastric Tube Feeding in Infants with Bronchiolitis on High-Flow Nasal Cannula

Objectives In this article, we aimed to determine if there is a difference in length of respiratory support between nasoduodenal (NDT) and nasogastric tube (NGT) feedings in patients with bronchiolitis on high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC).

Methods A single-center nonblinded parallel randomized control trial at a tertiary care hospital was designed. Pediatric patients ≤ 12 months old with bronchiolitis, on HFNC, requiring nutrition via a feeding tube were eligible. Patients were randomized to NGT or NDT and stratified into low- and high-risk groups. Length of respiratory support was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, number of emesis events, maximum level of respiratory support, number of X-rays to confirm tube placement, number of attempts to place the tube by staff, adverse events during placement, instances of pediatric intensive care unit admission, and emergency room visits and hospital readmissions within 7 and 30 days after discharge.

Results Forty patients were randomized, 20 in each arm. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. We found no significant difference in length of respiratory support between the two groups (NGT 0.84 incidence rate ratio [0.58, 1.2], p = 0.34). None of the secondary outcomes showed significant differences. Each arm reported one adverse event: nasal trauma in the NGT group and pneumothorax in the NDT group.

Conclusion For infants with bronchiolitis on HFNC that need enteric tube feedings, we find no difference in duration of respiratory support or other clinically relevant outcomes for those with NGT or NDT. These results should be interpreted in the context of a limited sample size and an indirect primary outcome of length of respiratory support that may be influenced by other factors besides aspiration events.

Nasogastric/nasoenteric tube-related adverse events: an integrative review

Objective:

to analyze in the scientific literature the evidence on nasogastric/nasoenteric tube related adverse events in adult patients.

Method:

integrative literature review through the search of publications in journals indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, EMBASE and Scopus, and hand searching, was undertaken up to April 2017.

Results:

the sample consisted of 69 primary studies, mainly in English and published in the USA and UK. They were divided in two main categories and subcategories: the first category refers to Mechanical Adverse Events (respiratory complications; esophageal or pharyngeal complications; tube obstruction; intestinal perforation; intracranial perforation and unplanned tube removal) and the second alludes to Others (pressure injury related to fixation and misconnections). Death was reported in 16 articles.

Conclusion:

nasogastric/nasoenteric tube related adverse events are relatively common and the majority involved respiratory harm that resulted in increased hospitalization and/or death. The results may contribute to healthcare professionals, especially nurses, to develop an evidence-based guideline for insertion and correct positioning of bedside enteral tubes in adult patients.

Clinical Costs of Feeding Tube Placement

BACKGROUND

Although small-bore tube placement is common, insertion can lead to serious complications. We investigated the use of radiographs, fluoroscopy, feeding tubes, and complications associated with blind feeding-tube placement.

METHODS

The electronic and paper records of adult patients receiving a small-bore feeding tube in 2005 were retrospectively reviewed for the following variables: demographics, desired location (gastric or postpyloric), number of radiographs, number of tubes per individual, time interval between medical prescription, tube placement and delivery of the diet, complications, transport for fluoroscopy, and hospital location of placement (intensive care unit vs floor).

RESULTS

We identified 1822 tubes placed into 729 patients (male: 449, 61.6%; female: 280, 38.4%; median age: 59 years old, range 18-98). All tubes were placed by nurses unless fluoroscopically placed in radiology or placed after head and neck surgery in the operating room. An average of 2.5 (range 1-20) tubes was used per patient. A total of 2696 radiographs were obtained for an average of 3.7 (range 0-32) films per patient and 1.5 (range 0-11) per feeding tube. Successful placement was higher for intragastric (93.3%) than for postpyloric position (60.4%; p < .001). Fluoroscopy was needed in 18.6% of the patients, mostly for postpyloric insertion (p < .001). Respiratory tree misplacement occurred in 23 (3.2%) patients; 9 (1.2%) had a pneumothorax and 4 (0.5%) died. Patients with a malpositioned feeding tube underwent more tube insertions (6.8 +/- 5.4; range 2-20) than patients without complications (2.2 +/- 1.8; range 1-18; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of airway misplacement of feeding tubes (3.2%) at a major tertiary referral university hospital was alarming. Mandatory radiographs may eliminate the risk of respiratory administration of feedings but not misplacements. The associated costs of radiographs, unsuccessful placements, fluoroscopy, and complications are significant. A solution to this problem will require focused attention and development of specific protocols, possibly using new technologies.

Monitoring Feeding Tube Placement

The purpose of this literature review is to describe currently available bedside methods to determine feeding tube placement. Described first are methods used at the time of blind insertion to distinguish between gastric and respiratory placement and gastric and small-bowel placement. Discussed next are methods used after feedings are initiated to determine if the tube has remained in the desired position in the gastrointestinal tract. Some of the methods are research-based, whereas others are opinion-based. The level of accuracy of the methods discussed in the review varies widely. No sure non-radiographic method exists to differentiate between respiratory, esophageal, gastric, and small bowel placement of blindly inserted feeding tubes in the fed or unfed state. However, a combination of some of the simpler and more accurate methods may be used to guide feeding tube placement during insertion and help identify the point at which an abdominal radiograph is most likely to confirm the desired location. In addition, methods described in this review can help determine when a radiograph is needed to confirm that a feeding tube has remained in the correct position after the initiation of feedings. Minimizing the number of radiographs taken to assure correct tube placement is important, especially in young children and in the critical care setting where the need for radiographs for other reasons is common.

Clinical usefulness of capnographic monitoring when inserting a feeding tube in critically ill patients: retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

It is not rare for a small-bore feeding tube to be inserted incorrectly into the respiratory system in critically ill patients. Thus, monitoring is necessary to prevent respiratory malplacement of the tube. We investigated the utility of capnographic monitoring to prevent respiratory complications due to feeding tube mispositioning in critically ill patients.

METHODS

This study was a pre and post-interventional study, including 445 feeding tube placements events studied retrospectively in the medical and surgical intensive care units of the Samsung Medical Center. We compared outcomes between time periods before and after capnographic monitoring and documented any respiratory complications.

RESULTS

Feeding tubes were inserted in 275 cases without capnographic monitoring. Capnographic monitoring was performed in 170 cases. Sixteen patients (4%) had respiratory complications of all tube placements. Feeding tube was inserted into the trachea in 11 (2%) patients and for a pneumothorax in five (1%) patients. Fourteen cases of respiratory complications were detected in the control group (14/275, 5%, 10 tracheal insertions and four pneumothoraxes). Two respiratory complications were detected in the capnographic monitoring group (2/170, 1%, one tracheal insertion and one pneumothorax). Respiratory complications were detected less frequently in the capnographic monitoring group than that in the control group (P = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Capnographic monitoring is simple, easy to learn, and may be useful to prevent respiratory complications when placing a feeding tube in a critically ill patient.

A case of a ‘lost’ nasogastric tube

Objectives:

To present the case of a ‘lost’ nasogastric tube and to highlight the importance of imaging and/or chest X-ray after nasogastric tube insertion, especially in unreliable patients.

Case report:

A 50-year-old man, undergoing radiotherapy treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue base, was admitted for pain control and nasogastric tube feeding. This patient required multiple nasogastric tubes over a two-week period. The patient repeatedly denied pulling the nasogastric tube out and we were unable to establish the exact mode of nasogastric tube removal. On one such occasion another tube was inserted and a check X-ray showed two feeding tubes; the latest one was lying in the left main bronchus and the old nasogastric tube was observed in the oesophagus, with its upper end jutting above the hypopharynx. It was apparent that the patient had somehow cut the tube and swallowed it.

Conclusion:

This case not only illustrates the importance of flexible nasendoscopy and/or chest X-ray for checking the position of the nasogastric tube, but also highlights that some patients are not tolerant of nasogastric tubes. The use of nasogastric tubes should be avoided in these patients to prevent any self-inflicted injury.

Imaging review of procedural and periprocedural complications of central venous lines, percutaneous intrathoracic drains, and nasogastric tubes

Placements of central venous lines (CVC), percutaneous intrathoracic drains (ITDs), and nasogastric tubes (NGTs) are some of the most common interventional procedures performed on patients that are unconscious and in almost all intensive care/high dependency patients in one form or the other. These are standard procedures within the remit of physicians, and other trained health professionals. Procedural complications may occur in 7%–15% of patients depending upon the intervention and experience of the operator. Most complications are minor, but other serious complications may add significantly to morbidity and even mortality of already compromised patients. Imaging findings are the key to the detection of misplaced lines, and tubes and their prompt recognition are vital to avoid harm to the patient. It is, therefore, pertinent that healthcare professionals who perform these procedures are familiar with imaging complications of these procedures. Here, we present the imaging characteristics of procedural complications.

Methods and complications of nasoenteral intubation

Nasoenteral intubation is among the most common procedures performed by clinicians across all medical specialties. The most common technique for nasoenteral intubation is blind passage, as it does not require the use of sophisticated or expensive medical equipment. Unfortunately, blind placement too frequently results in trauma and is a source of significant morbidity and mortality. It is apparent that altered mental status, a preexisting endotracheal tube, and critical illness put a patient in a higher risk group for malposition and complications. Nasoenteral intubation should be attempted only with an understanding of the possibility for difficult placement and the potential complications that can arise from trauma or malposition.

Oral and nasal enteral tube placement errors and complications in a pediatric intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To report five cases of errors in the placement of oral/nasal enteral tubes in a pediatric intensive care unit, and to review literature on placement techniques and complication rates.

DESIGN

Case series and review of the literature.

SETTING

A 19-bed pediatric intensive care unit in a tertiary care pediatric hospital.

PATIENTS

A 14-yr-old male with respiratory distress following a near drowning, a 10-yr-old male with recurrent acute lymphocytic leukemia and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, a 16-yr-old female with complex congenital heart disease and respiratory failure, a 16-yr-old male with status asthmaticus, and a 2-yr-old male with congenital heart disease.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN RESULTS

Five cases of enteral tube placement errors occurred in our combined medical-surgical pediatric critical care unit within the past year. All five resulted in placement of the feeding tube in the respiratory tract, four occurred despite the presence of cuffed endotracheal tubes. Three of the five patients had subsequent worsening of their respiratory status. One developed a pneumothorax, one developed pulmonary hemorrhage, and one developed an increased oxygen requirement.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in the pediatric intensive care unit may have characteristics that place them at an increased risk for misplacement of oral or nasal enteral tubes into the respiratory tract. Placement of enteral tubes into the respiratory tract may cause serious morbidity and possibly mortality. Checking the placement of enteral tubes with traditional methods does not prevent misplacement in the respiratory tree, and new techniques should be considered.

Accidental Iatrogenic Pneumothorax in Hospitalized Patients

OBJECTIVE

Iatrogenic pneumothorax (IP) is an inherent risk to patients who undergo procedures that involve the intentional puncturing of the lung. IP also could occur accidentally to patients who do not undergo such procedures; such accidental IP (AIP) is suggestive of lapses in safe care. This study assessed the risk for AIP in patients hospitalized with specific diagnoses who underwent specific procedures.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We analyzed 7.5 million discharge abstracts from 994 short-term acute care hospitals across 28 states in 2000 in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample. AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) were used to identify AIP. AIP incidences and associated diagnoses and procedures were explored.

RESULTS

Patients who were admitted for pleurisy, cancer of the kidney and renal pelvis, or conduction disorders and complications of cardiac devices had the highest rates of developing AIP during hospitalization, with AIP rates at 2.24%, 1.14%, and 0.83% respectively. The procedure-specific rates for AIP varied from 2.68% for patients who underwent thoracentesis to 1.30% for those who underwent nephrectomy, to 0.06% for those who underwent gastrostomy. Thoracentesis appeared to be a high-risk procedure for patients who were admitted for secondary malignancies, pleurisy, or pneumonia, with AIP rates at 3.76%, 3.13%, and 2.28%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although AIP is most common after thoracentesis, it is a substantial threat to patients undergoing a wide range of procedures.

Évaluation prospective de trois méthodes de positionnement de la sonde nasogastrique en réanimation

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of three methods (aspiration of gastric fluid, pH measurement of gastric fluid, and insufflation of air) in order to determine the right position of the nasogastric (NG) tube.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, observational study in an intensive care unit.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients requiring a NG tube were included. Since the NG tube was inserted three tests were successively performed: aspiration of gastric fluid, pH measurement of the gastric fluid, and auscultation over the epigastrium of air injected through the NG tube. The feasibility and the results obtained for each test were noted and compared to chest X-ray, considered as the reference. Chest X-ray classified the complications as major or minor.

RESULTS

A total of 419 NG tube (202 decompressive NG tube and 217 gastric feeding tube) were analysed in 280 patients. Malpositions of the NG tube were observed in 10% (majors, n=11 and minors, n=31). Aspiration of gastric fluid and pH measurement were not sensible (77% and 49%, respectively) and not specific (38% and 74%, respectively). Insufflation of air was sensible (96%) but not specific (17%). The combination of the three methods did not improve the sensibility and specificity. Two complications were only detected by chest X-ray (one insertion in the intrapleural space, and one pneumothorax).

CONCLUSION

None of the test evaluated, alone or associated, was sufficient to avoid chest X-ray. Moreover the occurrence of two potential and serious complications only detected by chest X-ray increase this assertion.

Malpositioning of fine bore feeding tube: a serious complication

Feeding tubes are used frequently in the intensive care unit to provide enteral nutrition. For critically ill patients, enteral nutrition is preferable to parenteral in terms of cost, complication and gut mucosal maintenance. Fine bore feeding tubes are always preferred because their soft, flexible construction and narrow diameter enables these tubes to be well tolerated by patients and they rarely contribute to sinus infections or obstruction of breathing. On the other hand it is not uncommon that these tubes are misplaced in the tracheobronchial tree or the pleural cavity, especially in high-risk patients, i.e. sedated patients, patients with weak cough reflex, endotracheally intubated patients and agitated patients. Malpositioning in the peritoneal cavity or the mediastinum through gastric or esophageal perforation is also possible; even intravascular and intracranial misplacement have been reported. The incidence of misplacement of a feeding tube is difficult to estimate because few studies have been performed. The largest study of 1100 such tubes revealed an overall malposition rate of 1.3%, but it should be mentioned that this study included only radiographically detected misplacements. Other researchers estimate the occurrence of accidental misplacement and migration out of position as high as 13% to 20% in high-risk patients.

Patient safety: effect of institutional protocols on adverse events related to feeding tube placement in the critically ill1 1No competing interests declared

BACKGROUND

Inadvertent passage of a nasoenteric feeding tube into the tracheobronchial tree can result in pneumothorax. Measures requiring feeding tube passage to 35 cm only followed by a radiograph to verify intraesophageal placement and creation of a specialized placement team were implemented to decrease the incidence of procedure-related pneumothorax. This study evaluates the effectiveness of our safety measures.

STUDY DESIGN

Radiology reports from January 2000 through July 2003 were searched by computer with an algorithm designed to detect feeding tube placements possibly associated with the complication of intrabronchial placement or pneumothorax. Results were manually examined to eliminate false positives and verify causality.

RESULTS

Feeding tubes were placed in 4,190 unique patients during the study period; 87 patients had an intrabronchial malposition, and 9 experienced a pneumothorax caused by their feeding tube. The safety measures resulted in a significant decrease in procedure-related pneumothorax (0.09% versus 0.38%, p < 0.05), and a decrease in pneumothorax among patients with an intrabronchial placement (3% versus 27%, p < 0.05). More than two-thirds of patients with a misplaced tube had an endotracheal tube or tracheostomy, illustrating that such patients are not protected. Repeated malposition in the same patient was surprisingly common; 32% of patients with one intrabronchial misplacement ultimately had multiple misplacements. The risk of pneumothorax increased with misplacement at night (p < 0.05) and increased exponentially with each additional misplacement (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Creating a specialized placement team, and initiating the safety measure of limiting feeding tube placement to 35 cm and obtaining a radiograph before full advancement reduced the incidence of procedure-related pneumothorax.

[Nasogastric tube: intratracheal malposition and entrapment in a bronchial suture]

We report the unrecognized accidental intratracheal insertion of a nasogastric tube, following endotracheal intubation in a patient scheduled to undergo right lower lobectomy for carcinoma. After surgery, which had an unremarkable course, the trachea was extubated. However, the gastric tube was entrapped and attempts to withdraw it elicited fits of coughing. A chest X-ray showed the tube malpositioned in the right bronchus. A fibreoptic bronchoscopy did not permit removal of the tube extremity which was embedded in the bronchial suture. Finally an additional thoracotomy was required to withdraw the tube securely. The manifestations of the intratracheal position of a nasogastric tube as well as the preventive and diagnostic measures of such a complication are considered.