Endoscopic placement of nasojejunal tubes: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial comparing suitability and technical success for two different tubes

Postpyloric Feeding Access in Infants and Children: A State of the Art Review

Achieving postpyloric feeding access is a clinical challenge faced by the pediatric gastroenterologist in everyday practice. Currently, there is limited literature published on the topic. This article provides a practical summary of the literature on the different methods utilized to achieve postpyloric feeding access including bedside, fluoroscopic, endoscopic and surgical options. Indications and complications of these methods are discussed as well as a general approach to infants and children that require intestinal feeding.

Evaluation of ultrasound-guided Freka-Trelumina enteral nutrition tube placement in the treatment of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Enteral nutrition should be implemented as early as possible in patients with moderate or severe acute pancreatitis. This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and Deffectiveness of ultrasound-guided Freka-Trelumina tube placement for enteral nutrition in acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

Patients with severe acute pancreatitis admitted to Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University who needed Freka-Trelumina tube placement for enteral nutrition and gastrointestinal decompression were included in the current study. The relevant evaluation indicators of tube placement included the success rate of tube placement, tube placement time, tube shift rate, and blocking rate. In addition, the evaluation indicators of ultrasound-guided tube placement (from 1 January 2018 to 31 July 2019) were compared with those of previous endoscope-guided placement (from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2017) by analysing the data from the electronic medical record system.

RESULTS

The success rate of ultrasound-guided tube placement was 90.7% (49/54). All 49 patients tolerated the Freka-Trelumina feeding tube. The average ultrasound-guided tube placement time for the 49 patients was 18.4 ± 12.8 min (range, 5-36 min). The Freka-Trelumina feeding tube had a shift rate of 10.2% (5/49). The blocking rate of the Freka-Trelumina feeding tube was 12.2% (6/49). The success rate of tube placement, tube shift rate and blocking rate for endoscope-guided tube placement were 100% (62/62), 11.3% (7/62), and 12.9% (8/62), respectively. The average endoscope-guided tube placement time for the 62 patients was 16.5 ± 5.7 min (range, 12-31 min). The comparison between the ultrasound-guided group and the endoscope-guided group showed that the success rate of tube placement, tube placement time, tube shift rate and blocking rate were similar.

CONCLUSION

The ultrasound-guided method can be done non-invasively at the bedside, which is safe and convenient, and the Freka-Trelumina feeding tube can be placed in time to achieve the goal of early enteral nutrition and gastrointestinal decompression.

The Use of Jejunal Tube Feeding in Children: A Position Paper by the Gastroenterology and Nutrition Committees of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition 2019

OBJECTIVES

Jejunal tube feeding (JTF) is increasingly becoming the standard of care for children in whom gastric tube feeding is insufficient to achieve caloric needs. Given a lack of a systematic approach to the care of JTF in paediatric patients, the aim of this position paper is to provide expert guidance regarding the indications for its use and practical considerations to optimize its utility and safety.

METHODS

A group of members of the Gastroenterology and Nutrition Committees of the European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition and of invited experts in the field was formed in September 2016 to produce this clinical guide. Seventeen clinical questions treating indications and contraindications, investigations before placement, techniques of placement, suitable feeds and feeding regimen, weaning from JTF, complications, long-term care, and ethical considerations were addressed.A systematic literature search was performed from 1982 to November 2018 using PubMed, the MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to evaluate the outcomes.During a consensus meeting, all recommendations were discussed and finalized. In the absence of evidence from randomized controlled trials, recommendations reflect the expert opinion of the authors.

RESULTS

A total of 33 recommendations were voted on using the nominal voting technique.

CONCLUSIONS

JTF is a safe and effective means of enteral feeding when gastric feeding is insufficient to meet caloric needs or is not possible. The decision to place a jejunal tube has to be made by close cooperation of a multidisciplinary team providing active follow-up and care.

Establishing Decision Trees for Predicting Successful Postpyloric Nasoenteric Tube Placement in Critically Ill Patients

BACKGROUND

Despite the use of prokinetic agents, the overall success rate for postpyloric placement via a self-propelled spiral nasoenteric tube is quite low.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in the intensive care units of 11 university hospitals from 2006 to 2016 among adult patients who underwent self-propelled spiral nasoenteric tube insertion. Success was defined as postpyloric nasoenteric tube placement confirmed by abdominal x-ray scan 24 hours after tube insertion. Chi-square automatic interaction detection (CHAID), simple classification and regression trees (SimpleCart), and J48 methodologies were used to develop decision tree models, and multiple logistic regression (LR) methodology was used to develop an LR model for predicting successful postpyloric nasoenteric tube placement. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the performance of these models.

RESULTS

Successful postpyloric nasoenteric tube placement was confirmed in 427 of 939 patients enrolled. For predicting successful postpyloric nasoenteric tube placement, the performance of the 3 decision trees was similar in terms of the AUCs: 0.715 for the CHAID model, 0.682 for the SimpleCart model, and 0.671 for the J48 model. The AUC of the LR model was 0.729, which outperformed the J48 model.

CONCLUSION

Both the CHAID and LR models achieved an acceptable discrimination for predicting successful postpyloric nasoenteric tube placement and were useful for intensivists in the setting of self-propelled spiral nasoenteric tube insertion.

Endoscopy versus fluoroscopy for the placement of postpyloric nasoenteric tubes in critically ill patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Early postpyloric nasoenteric nutrition is considered an accepted method of nutritional support in critically ill patients. Both endoscopy and fluoroscopy placement of postpyloric nasoenteric tubes (PNTs) have the highest percentages of placement success rate. We aimed to evaluate the differences in efficacy and safety between endoscopy and fluoroscopy methods for the placement of PNTs in critically ill patients.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and electronic databases of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included randomized controlled trials comparing endoscopy and fluoroscopy placement of PNTs in critically ill patients. Two reviewers assessed the quality of each study and collected data independently. We performed the meta-analysis with Cochrane Collaboration RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials involving 243 patients were included. There were no significant differences in the placement success rate (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93, 1.06; z = 0.20, P = .84,) or procedure time (standardized mean difference, -0.08; 95% CI, -6.93, 6.77; z = 0.02, P = .98) between the 2 groups. No severe complications (digestive tract hemorrhage, perforation, respiratory problems, hemodynamic instability, or death) were noted in the three studies. There was a slight difference in the incidence of minor complications (RR, 8.12; 95% CI, 1.07, 61.53; z = 2.03, P = .04) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy and fluoroscopy placement of PNTs can be accurately and safely performed in critically ill patients. Endoscopy may be at least equally as safe as fluoroscopy for the placement of PNTs.

Evaluation of a new method for placing nasojejunal feeding tubes

AIM: To compare fluoroscopic, endoscopic and guide wire assistance with ultraslim gastroscopy for placement of nasojejunal feeding tubes.

METHODS: The information regarding nasojejunal tube placement procedures was retrieved using the gastrointestinal tract database at Tongji Hospital affiliated to Tongji Medical College. Records from 81 patients who underwent nasojejunal tubes placement by different techniques between 2004 and 2011 were reviewed for procedure success and tube-related outcomes.

RESULTS: Nasojejunal feeding tubes were successfully placed in 78 (96.3%) of 81 patients. The success rate by fluoroscopy was 92% (23 of 25), by endoscopic technique 96.3% (26 of 27), and by guide wire assistance (whether via transnasal or transoral insertion) 100% (23/23, 6/6). The average time for successful placement was 14.9 ± 2.9 min for fluoroscopic placement, 14.8 ± 4.9 min for endoscopic placement, 11.1 ± 2.2 min for guide wire assistance with transnasal gastroscopic placement, and 14.7 ± 1.2 min for transoral gastroscopic placement. Statistically, the duration for the third method was significantly different (P < 0.05) compared with the other three methods. Transnasal placement over a guidewire was significantly faster (P < 0.05) than any of the other approaches.

CONCLUSION: Guide wire assistance with transnasal insertion of nasojejunal feeding tubes represents a safe, quick and effective method for providing enteral nutrition.

Enteral nutrition access devices

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but, in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such situations, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the ASGE Governing Board. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 for articles related to endoscopy in patients requiring enteral feeding access by using the keywords "endoscopy," "percutaneous," "gastrostomy," "jejunostomy," "nasogastric," "nasoenteric," "nasojejunal," "transnasal," "feeding tube," "enteric," and "button." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Transnasal endoscopy vs. fluoroscopy for the placement of nasoenteric feeding tubes in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

Placement of a nasoenteric feeding tube (NET) beyond the pylorus in critically ill patients is desirable. Bedside methods are unreliable, and fluoroscopic methods require transport and/or radiation exposure. Traditional endoscopic methods require sedation and oronasal transfer techniques. Transnasal techniques of NET placement by using recently developed ultrathin endoscopes have been described. The object of this prospective study was to compare the efficacy of NET placement by using ultrathin transnasal endoscopy vs. fluoroscopic placement.

METHODS

This is a prospective randomized study of endoscopic vs. fluoroscopic NET placement. The settings of the study were intensive care units at academic medical center. The study included 100 consecutive patients who required NET placement. They received endoscopic NET placement at the bedside with a 5.1-mm, ultrathin endoscope by using a transnasal over-the-wire technique vs. fluoroscopic NET placement by using standard techniques. The procedure success was defined as postpyloric (beyond the duodenal bulb) NET placement, jejunal placement success, and procedure time.

RESULTS

Tube placement success was not significantly different between endoscopic and fluoroscopic methods (90% with both methods; p = 1.00). The endoscopic procedure duration (12.8 +/- 6.4 minutes) was significantly shorter than fluoroscopic procedure duration (19.3 +/- 12.0 minutes) (p < 0.001). Procedure duration decreased significantly (from 17.3 +/- 6.2 minutes to 8.0 minutes +/- 4.2 minutes, p = 0.04), and jejunal placement increased significantly (from 60% to 100%, p = 0.04) from the first to the last 10 endoscopic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

NET placement success with an ultrathin transnasal endoscope is equivalent to fluoroscopic placement with faster procedure times. More distal placement and procedure times improve with increasing experience with the endoscopic technique. Endoscopic NET placement can be performed at the bedside without the need for oronasal transfer, additional sedation, or fluoroscopy.

Interventional endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides an updated summary of gastric interventional endoscopy. Relevant original articles and topic reviews are highlighted in the areas of infection control, light sedation, hemostasis, endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic placement of enteric devices.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several key findings are worth noting: the increased use of propofol by nonanesthesiologists for deep sedation with minimal adverse side effects, the adaptation of tissue adhesive agents for the treatment of bleeding gastric varices, the successful treatment of early gastric cancer by endoscopic mucosal resection, and the development of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tubes for patients at high risk of aspiration.

SUMMARY

These recent developments in the field of interventional endoscopy have already made a great impact on clinical care. More advanced procedures can be performed safely while the patient is under deep sedation. Yet, these developments have not slowed down the need for improvement in interventional endoscopy. Researchers continue to look for smaller instruments, better optics, and more advanced accessories. This constant state of flux marks the field of interventional endoscopy and ensures its progress.