Jejunal tube placement in critically ill patients: A prospective, randomized trial comparing the endoscopic technique with the electromagnetically visualized method

Nasointestinal tube placement: Techniques that increase success

Background

Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is a major cause of undernutrition that can be overcome using nasointestinal (NI) feeding, but tube placement often fails. We analyse which techniques enable successful NI tube placement.

Methods

Efficacy of tube technique was determined at each of six anatomical points: Nose, nasopharynx-oesophagus, stomach-upper and -lower, duodenum part-1 and intestine.

Results

In 913 first NI tube placements, significant associations with tube advancement were found in the pharynx (head tilt, jaw thrust, laryngoscopy), stomach_upper (air insufflation, 10 cm or 20-30 cm flexible tube tip ± reverse Seldinger manoeuvre), stomach_lower (air insufflation, possibly flexible tip and wire stiffener) and duodenum part-1 and beyond part-2 (flexible tip and combinations of micro-advance, slack removal, wire stiffener or prokinetic drugs).

Conclusion

This is the first study to show what techniques are associated with tube advancement and the alimentary tract level they are specific to.

Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic-guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes

BACKGROUND

For people who are malnourished and unable to consume food by mouth, nasoenteral feeding tubes are commonly used for the administration of liquid food and drugs. Postpyloric placement is when the tip of the feeding tube is placed beyond the pylorus, in the small intestine.  Endoscopic-guided placement of postpyloric feeding tubes is the most common approach. Usually, an endoscopist and two or more medical professionals perform this procedure using a guidewire technique. The position of the tube is then confirmed with fluoroscopy or radiography, which requires moving people undergoing the procedure to the radiology department. Alternatively, electromagnetic-guided placement of postpyloric nasoenteral feeding tubes can be performed by a single trained nurse, at the bedside and with less equipment than endoscopic-guided placement. Hence, electromagnetic-guided placement may represent a promising alternative to endoscopic-guided placement, especially in settings where endoscopy and radiographic facilities are unavailable or difficult to access.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of electromagnetic-guided placement of postpyloric nasoenteral feeding tubes compared to endoscopic-guided placement.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and OpenGrey until February 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature. We contacted the study authors for missing data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials comparing electromagnetic-guided placement with endoscopic-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes. We excluded prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and case series or case reports.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and extracted data from the included trials. The primary outcomes were technical success in insertion and aspiration pneumonitis. The secondary outcomes were the time for postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes, direct healthcare costs, and adverse events. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We evaluated the certainty of evidence based on the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four randomised controlled trials with 541 participants which met our inclusion criteria. All trials had methodological limitations, and lack of blinding of participants and investigators was a major source of bias. We had 'some concerns' for the overall risk of bias in all trials.  Electromagnetic-guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes may result in little to no difference in technical success in insertion compared to endoscopic-guided placement (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; I2 = 81%; low-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement may result in a difference in the proportion of participants with aspiration pneumonitis compared to endoscopic-guided placement, but these results are unclear (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.18; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence).  Electromagnetic-guided placement may result in little to no difference in the time for postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes compared to endoscopic-guided placement (MD 4.06 minutes, 95% CI -0.47 to 8.59; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement likely reduces direct healthcare costs compared to endoscopic-guided placement (MD -127.69 US dollars, 95% CI -135.71 to -119.67; moderate-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement likely results in little to no difference in adverse events compared with endoscopic-guided placement (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-certainty evidence that electromagnetic-guided placement at the bedside results in little to no difference in technical success in insertion and aspiration pneumonitis, compared to endoscopic-guided placement. The heterogeneity of the healthcare professionals who performed the procedures and the small sample sizes limited our confidence in the evidence. Future research should be based on large studies with well-defined endpoints to potentially elucidate the differences between these two procedures.

Use of an electromagnetic-guided device to assist with post-pyloric placement of a nasoenteral feeding tube: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  While endoscopic-guided placement (EGP) of a post-pyloric nasoenteral feeding tube may improve caloric intake and reduce the risk of bronchoaspiration, an electromagnetic-guided placement (EMGP) method may obviate the need for endoscopic procedures. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of EMGP versus EGP of a post-pyloric feeding tube. Methods  Protocolized searches were performed from the inception through January 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. Only randomized controlled trials were included comparing EMGP versus EGP. Study outcomes included: technical success (defined as appropriate post-pyloric positioning), tube and patient associated adverse events (AEs), time to enteral nutrition, procedure-associated cost, and procedure time. Pooled risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) were calculated using a fixed-effects model and heterogeneity evaluated using Higgins test (I 2 ). Results  Four randomized trials (n = 536) were included. A total of 287 patients were included in the EMGP group and 249 patients in the EGP group. There was no difference between EMGP versus EGP regarding technical success, tube-related AEs, patient-related AEs, procedure time, and time in the right position. Time to enteral nutrition favored EMGP (MD: -134.37 [-162.13, -106.61]; I 2  = 35 %); with significantly decreased associated cost (MD: -127.77 ($) [-135.8-119.73]; I 2  = 0 %). Conclusions  Based on this study, EMGP and EGP were associated with similar levels of technical success and safety as well as time to complete the procedure. Despite this, EMGP was associated with reduced cost and time to initiation of nutrition.

The feasibility of electromagnetic sensing aided post pyloric feeding tube placement (CORTRAK) in patients with thrombocytopenia with or without anticoagulation on the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

The successful initiation of enteral nutrition is frequently hampered by various complications occurring in patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). Successful placement of a nasojejunal tube by CORTRAK enteral access system (CEAS) has been reported to be a simple bedside tool for placing the postpyloric (PP) feeding tube.

METHODS

We evaluated the efficacy and side effects using CEAS to establish EN in patients with critical illness, thrombocytopenia, and/or anticoagulation.

RESULTS

Fifty-six mechanically ventilated patients were analyzed. Twenty-four of them underwent prior hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT). Sixteen patients received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment because of acute respiratory distress syndrome. The median platelet count at PP placement was 26 g/L (range, 4-106 g/L); 16 patients received therapeutic anticoagulation (activated partial thromboplastin time, 50-70 s). CEAS-assisted placement of a PP nasojejunal tube was performed successfully in all patients. The most frequent adverse event was epistaxis in 27 patients (48.2%), which was mostly mild (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 1, n = 21 [77.8%], and grade 2, n = 6). A significant association between a low platelet count and bleeding complications was observed (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Performed by an experienced operator, CEAS is a simple, rapidly available, and effective bedside tool for safely placing PP feeding tubes for EN in patients with thrombocytopenia, even when showing an otherwise-caused coagulopathy in the ICU. Higher-grade bleeding complications were not observed despite their obvious correlation to thrombocytopenia. A prospective study is in preparation.

Video-assisted placement of enteral feeding tubes using the Integrated Real-Time Imaging System (IRIS)-technology in critically ill patients

INTRODUCTION

In critically ill patients, nasogastric (NG) and nasojejunal (NJ) feeding tube placements are standard procedures. However, about 1.9% of blind tube insertions are malpositioned in the tracheopulmonary system, whereas guided procedures may result in a significant delay in nutritional delivery. Guided methods, such as Cortrak and fluoroscopy, have success rates of 82.6-85% and 93% respectively. The current study aims to investigate the performance of video-assisted feeding tube placement in the post-pyloric position using Integrated Real Time Imaging System (IRIS-) technology.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study in patients requiring enteral feeding was conducted in a mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU). The primary outcome was the post-pyloric placement of IRIS feeding tubes, as confirmed by X-ray. Secondary study objectives included gastric placement, ease of use and adverse events.

RESULTS

Thirty-one feeding tubes were placed using IRIS-technology; one patient was excluded for analysis due to protocol violation. One procedure was terminated due to significant bleeding (epistaxis) and desaturation. Only eighteen (58%) feeding tubes were placed in post-pyloric position (including two past the ligament of Treitz). In subjects who needed post-pyloric placement due gastroparesis, IRIS was mostly unsuccessful (success rate of 25%). However, when gastric placement was the primary objective, 96.8% of tubes were correctly placed. During insertion, tracheal visualization occurred in 27% of cases, and the IRIS feeding tube was repositioned early in the procedure without causing patient harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time video-assisted post-pyloric feeding tube placement in critically ill ICU patients was only successful in 58% of cases and therefore currently cannot be recommended for this indication. However, a high success rate (96.8%) for gastric placement was achieved. IRIS tube placement detected tracheal misplacement immediately and had few adverse events.

Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Current evidence supporting the utility of electromagnetic (EM)-guided method as the preferred technique for nasoenteral feeding tube placement is limited. We plan to provide a meta-analysis to compare the performance of EM-guided versus endoscopic placement.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Randomised controlled trials evaluating EM-guided versus endoscopic placement will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL from database inception to 30 September 2020. Data on study design, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcomes will be extracted. Primary outcomes to be assessed are complications. Secondary outcomes include procedure success rate, total procedure time, patient recommendation, length of hospital stay and mortality. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data will be combined with a random effects model. The results will be presented as a risk ratio for dichotomous data and weighted mean difference for continuous data. Publication bias will be visualised using funnel plots. We will quantify the effect of potential effect modifiers by meta-regression if appropriate. The quality of evidence will be evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will not use primary data, and therefore formal ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and committee conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020172427.

Ultrasonography-guided post-pyloric feeding tube insertion in medical intensive care unit patients

In this study, we investigated placement rate, complication rate and time spent of successful post-pyloric enteral feeding (PPEF) tube insertion procedure guided by ultrasonography (USG). The patients who required enteral nutrition and who admitted to medical intensive care unit (MICU) of Gazi University Hospital were included to this single-center, prospective, cohort study. It was aimed to insert the enteral feeding tube into the proximal duodenum as the post-pyloric area by ultrasonography guidance. During the PPEF tube insertion procedure, the linear probe was used to display the proximal esophagus and the convex probe was used to display the post-pyloric area, antrum and pyloric channel. 33 patients were included in this study. The median age was 68 [IQR 52-79] years. There were 17 (51.5%) woman and 22 (66.7%) intubated patients. The enteral feeding tube was successfully passed into the post-pyloric area in 29 (87.9%) patients with this technique. The median time of successful feeding tube insertion was 14 [IQR 10-25] min. The median level of the enteral feeding tube was 74 [IQR 70-76] cm. in successful placement. There was no significant difference in insertion time according to gender (female vs male; 10 [IQR 8-20] min. vs 17 [IQR 12-25] min., p = 0.052) and endotracheal intubation status (intubated vs non-intubated; 14 [IQR 10-25] min. vs 12 [IQR 10-25] min., p = 0.985). Only one complication was seen during study (self-limiting epistaxis in one patient). PPEF tube insertion under USG guidance could ensure the initiation of enteral feeding safely and rapidly without exposure to radiation in ICU patients.

GASTROINTESTINAL TUBE INSERTION TECHNIQUES IN CRITICAL PATIENTS: SCOPING REVIEW

ABSTRACT Objective to map the production of knowledge about the different techniques of gastrointestinal tube insertion in critically ill and/or coma patients. Method scope review carried out in December 2020 in ten data sources, following the assumptions established by the Joanna Briggs Institute (2020) and the PRISMA-ScR protocol. Results 25 studies were selected and analyzed, identifying as the main techniques for insertion of gastrointestinal tube in critically ill and/or coma patients: techniques without the aid of instrumentals, such as head flexion, lateral neck pressure, tube freezing, measurement with corrected formula of the tip of the ear-lobe tip-xiphoid process, Sellick´s maneuver, cricoid cartilage compression, SORT maneuver and gastric insufflation. In addition to techniques with the aid of instruments, such as the use of laryngoscopes and video laryngoscopes. It is noteworthy that, in order to facilitate insertion, the use of ultrasound examination, radiological, endoscopic and fluoroscopy were also identified. Conclusions the evidence analyzed reveals that there is no specific gastrointestinal tube insertion technique for universally accepted critically ill patients.

Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background

Current evidence supporting the utility of electromagnetic (EM)-guided method as the preferred technique for post-pyloric feeding tube placement is limited. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of EM-guided versus endoscopic placement.

Methods

We searched several databases for all randomised controlled trials evaluating the EM-guided vs. endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes up to 28 July 2020. Primary outcome was procedure success rate. Secondary outcomes included reinsertion rate, number of attempts, placement-related complications, tube-related complications, insertion time, total procedure time, patient discomfort, recommendation scores, length of hospital stay, mortality, and total costs.

Results

Four trials involving 536 patients were qualified for the final analysis. There was no difference between the two groups in procedure success rate (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.91–1.03), reinsertion rate (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.59–1.20), number of attempts (WMD − 0.23; 95% CI − 0.99–0.53), placement-related complications (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.41–1.49), tube-related complications (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.82–1.44), total procedure time (WMD − 18.09 min; 95% CI − 38.66–2.47), length of hospital stay (WMD 1.57 days; 95% CI − 0.33–3.47), ICU mortality (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.50–1.29), in-hospital mortality (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.59–1.28), and total costs (SMD − 1.80; 95% CI − 3.96–0.36). The EM group was associated with longer insertion time (WMD 4.3 min; 95% CI 0.2–8.39), higher patient discomfort level (WMD 1.28; 95% CI 0.46–2.1), and higher recommendation scores (WMD 1.67; 95% CI 0.24–3.10).

Conclusions

No significant difference was found between the two groups in efficacy, safety, and costs. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO (CRD42020172427)

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40560-020-00506-8.

Pneumothoraces Prevented With Use of Electromagnetic Device to Place Feeding Tubes

BACKGROUND

A US Food and Drug Administration safety letter warned about the risk for pneumothoraces during feeding tube insertion despite the use of electromagnetic placement devices that provide real-time visualization of feeding tube position.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess pulmonary placement and pneumothoraces in CORTRAK-assisted feeding tube insertions.

METHODS

CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies of CORTRAK-assisted feeding tube insertion. Thirty-two studies documenting pulmonary placement and/or complications of feeding tube insertion were found.

RESULTS

Operators recognized pulmonary placement on insertion tracings during 202 CORTRAK-assisted feeding tube insertion procedures, resulting in the immediate withdrawal of 199 feeding tubes. One pneumothorax was identified later by radiography. Seven pulmonary placements were not recognized by CORTRAK operators at the time of feeding tube insertion, resulting in 2 pneumothoraces. The incidence of pneumothorax for CORTRAK-assisted feeding tube insertions was 0.02% (3 of 17039). Of the feeding tubes inserted into the pulmonary system - either found during or after the procedure -1.4% (3 of 209) resulted in pneumothoraces (as opposed to the 19% to 28% incidence of pneumothorax for blind feeding tube insertions. Operators recognizing pulmonary placement on CORTRAK insertion tracings may have prevented 97% (202 of 209) of feeding tubes from being inserted farther into the respiratory tract.

CONCLUSIONS

Feeding tube insertion with an electromagnetic placement device is advantageous over blind feeding tube insertion because the operator can recognize pulmonary placement early and withdraw the feeding tube, thus decreasing the risk of pulmonary complications.

Electromagnetically guided bedside placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes in critical care

Post-pyloric feeding is recommended in critically ill patients with gastro-intestinal intolerance. However, traditional placement methods are logistically difficult and carry potential risks. The authors retrospectively compared the position of post-pyloric feeding tubes (PPFTs) using an electromagnetic device that demonstrated by X-ray and analysed the complication rates, proportion of lung placements avoided and the time taken to establish enteral feeding. Forty placements in 37 mechanically ventilated patients were analysed; there was a success rate of 87.5%. Sensitivity and specificity were 77% (95% CI 59.9-89.6%) and 100% (95% CI 48.0-100%). Five lung placements were identified in real time and therefore avoided. The mean (SD) time from PPFT placement to X-ray was 134 minutes (± 139 minutes) and, to feeding, 276 minutes (± 213 minutes). In conclusion, placement of PPFT using an electromagnetic device carries a high success rate, is safe and feasible to undertake at the bedside in mechanically ventilated patients.

Bedside electromagnetic-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes among critically Ill patients: A single-centre randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the effectiveness of EM-guided and endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement among critically ill patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a single-center, randomized controlled trial among 161 adult patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) requiring nasoenteral feeding. Patients were randomly assigned to EM-guided or endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement (1:1). The primary end point was the total success rate of correct jejunal placement.

RESULTS

This was achieved in 74/81 and 76/80 patients who underwent EM-guided and endoscopic jejunal tube placements, respectively (91.4% vs. 95%; relative risk, 0.556; [CI], 0.156-1.980; P = 0.360). The EM-guided group had more placement attempts, longer placement time, and shorter inserted nasal intestinal tube length. However, they had shorter total placement procedure duration and physician's order-tube placement and order-start of feeding intervals. The EM-guided group had higher discomfort level and recommendation scores and lesser patient costs. This trial is registered at Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR-IOR-17011737).

CONCLUSION

Bedside EM-guided placement is as fast, safe, and successful as endoscopic placement and may be considered the preferred technique in critically ill patients.

[Intestinal cross-talk : The gut as motor of multiple organ failure]

The central role of the organ system "gut" for critically ill patients has not been acknowledged until the last decade. The gut is a crucial immunologic, metabolic and neurologic organ system and impairment of its functions is associated with morbidity and mortality. The gut has a central position in the cross-talk between organs and dysfunction of the gut may result in impairment of other intra-abdominal and extra-abdominal organ systems. The intestinal tract is the most important source of endogenous infections and determines the inflammatory status of the organism. Gut failure is an element of the multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). The leading mechanism in the evolution of endogenous infections is the intestinal translocation of microbes. A dysbiosis and damage of the intestinal mucosa leads to a disorder of the mucosal barrier function, increases the permeability and promotes translocation (leaky gut hypothesis). A further crucial mechanism of organ interactions is the increase in intra-abdominal pressure. Intra-abdominal hypertension promotes further injury of the gut, increases translocation and inflammation and causes dysfunction of other organ systems, such as the kidneys, the cardiovascular system and the lungs. Maintaining and/or restoring intestinal functions must be a priority of any intensive care therapy. The most important measure is early enteral nutrition. Other measures are the preservation of motility and modulation of the intestinal microbiome. Intra-abdominal hypertension must be reduced by an individually adapted infusion therapy, positioning of the patient, administration of drugs (abdominal compliance) and decompression (by tubes, endoscopically or in severe cases surgically).

A novel quick transendoscopic enteral tubing in mid-gut: technique and training with video

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and value of a quick technique for transendoscopic enteral tubing (TET) through mid-gut.

METHODS

A prospective interventional study was performed in a single center. A TET tube was inserted into mid-gut through the nasal orifice and fixed on the pylorus wall by one tiny titanium endoscopic clip under anesthesia. The feasibility, safety, success rate, and satisfaction with TET placement were evaluated for enteral nutrition or fecal microbiota transplantation.

RESULTS

A total of 86 patients underwent mid-gut TET. The success rate of the TET procedure was 98.8% (85/86). Mean tubing time of the TET procedure was 4.2 ± 1.9 min. 10 cases of procedure was enough for training of general endoscopist to shorten the procedure time (7.0 min vs 4.0 min, p < 0.05). 97.7% (84/86) of patients were satisfied with the TET placement. Procedure-related and tube-related adverse events were observed in 8.1% (7/86) and 7.0% (6/86) of patients respectively. There were no moderate to severe adverse events during tube extubation.

CONCLUSIONS

TET through mid-gut is a novel, convenient, reliable and safe procedure for mid-gut administration with a high degree of patient satisfaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This research was retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov. Trial registration date: 29th November 2017.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03335982 .

Semi-automated ultrasound guidance applied to nasogastrojejunal tube replacement for enteral nutrition in critically ill adults

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

At present, the enteral nutrition approaches via nose and duodenum (or nose and jejunum) are the preferred method of nutritional support in the medical engineering field, given the superiority of in line with physiological processes and no serious complication. In this study, the authors adopted saline as the acoustic window, and gave enteral nutrition support to critically ill patients, via the nasogastrojejunal approach guided by semi-automated ultrasound. These above patients benefited a lot from this kind of nutrition support treatment, and we aimed to report the detailed information.

METHODS

Critically ill patients (n = 41) who had been treated with hospitalized intestine nutrition were identified. The Apogee 1200 ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, and nasogastrojejunal tubes were adopted to carry out intestine nutrition treatment guided by semi-automated ultrasound. In order to confirm the specific positions of cardia, gastric body, antrum of stomach, and pylorus, the semi-automated ultrasound was utilized to probe the stomach cavity. And then, the ultrasonic probe was placed in the cardia location, and the nasogastrojejunal tube was slowly inserted through the metal thread. After operation, the nursing service satisfaction of patients and mean operation time were calculated, respectively.

RESULTS

All the patients were treated with enteral nutrition via nasogastrojejunal tube, and the whole procedure was under the guidance of semi-automated ultrasonography. The end of the feeding tube is attached to the surface of the stomach with a greater curvature, which can be bent on account of a no gastric peristalsis squeeze function, and thereby were prevented from entering into the antrum and pylorus locations. After this procedure, the mental thread was taken out, and the tube was pushed forward by a "drift" approach in order to allow it to enter into the intestine. The total nursing service satisfaction of patients was 90.24%, and the total incidence of adverse reactions was 17.07%.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the application of saline can be taken as sound window, and the metal wire as the tracking target, the bedside nasogastrojejunal tube guided by semi-automated ultrasound is an effective feeding tube placement method, with relatively good clinical application value in medical engineering.

Electromagnetic-guided placement of nasoduodenal feeding tubes versus endoscopic placement: a randomized, multicenter trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Electromagnetic-guided placement (EMP) of a nasoduodenal feeding tube by trained nurses is an attractive alternative to EGD-guided placement (EGDP). We aimed to compare EMP and EGDP in outpatients, ward patients, and critically ill patients with normal upper GI anatomy.

METHODS

In 3 centers with no prior experience in EMP, patients were randomized to placement of a single-lumen nasoduodenal feeding tube either with EGDP or EMP. The primary endpoint was post-pyloric position of the tube on abdominal radiography. Patients were followed for 10 days to assess patency and adverse events. The analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

In total, 160 patients were randomized to EGDP (N = 76) or EMP (N = 84). Three patients withdrew informed consent, and no abdominal radiography was performed in 2 patients. Thus, 155 patients (59 intensive care unit, 38%) were included in the analyses. Rates of post-pyloric tube position between EGDP and EMP were comparable (79% vs 82%, odds ratio 1.16; 90% confidence interval, 0.58-2.38; P = .72). Adverse events were observed in 4 patients after EMP (hypoxia, GI blood loss, atrial fibrillation, abdominal pain) and in 4 after EGDP (epistaxis N = 2, GI blood loss, hypoxia). Costs of tube placements were lower for EMP compared with EGDP: $519.09 versus $622.49, respectively (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Success rates and safety of EMP and EGDP in patients with normal upper GI anatomy were comparable. Lower costs and potential logistic advantages may drive centers to adopt EMP as their new standard of care. (Clinical trial registration number: NTR4286.).

Electromagnetic-Guided Bedside Placement of Nasoenteral Feeding Tubes by Nurses Is Non-Inferior to Endoscopic Placement by Gastroenterologists: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Electromagnetic (EM)-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses may improve efficiency and reduce patient discomfort and costs compared with endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists. However, evidence supporting this task shift from gastroenterologists to nurses is limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of EM-guided and endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial in 154 adult patients who required nasoenteral feeding and were admitted to gastrointestinal surgical wards in five Dutch hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EM-guided or endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. The primary end point was the need for reinsertion of the feeding tube (e.g., after failed initial placement or owing to tube-related complications) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%.

RESULTS

Reinsertion was required in 29 (36%) of the 80 patients in the EM-guided group and 31 (42%) of the 74 patients in the endoscopy group (absolute risk difference -6%, upper limit of one-sided 95% confidence interval 7%; P for non-inferiority=0.022). No differences were noted in success and complication rates. In the EM-guided group, there was a reduced time to start of feeding (424 vs. 535 min, P=0.001). Although the level of discomfort was higher in the EM-guided group (Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 3.9 vs. 2.0, P=0.009), EM-guided placement received higher recommendation scores (VAS 8.2 vs. 5.5, P=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

EM-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses was non-inferior to endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists in surgical patients and may be considered the preferred technique for nasoenteral feeding tube placement.

Naso-enteric Tube Placement: A Review of Methods to Confirm Tip Location, Global Applicability and Requirements

BACKGROUND

The insertion of a tube through the nose and into the stomach or beyond is a common clinical procedure for feeding and decompression. The safety, accuracy and reliability of tube insertion and methods used to confirm the location of the naso-enteric tube (NET) tip have not been systematically reviewed. The aim of this study is to review and compare these methods and determine their global applicability by end-user engagement.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of four major databases was performed to identify all relevant studies. The methods for NET tip localization were then compared for their accuracy with reference to a gold standard method (radiography or endoscopy). The global applicability of the different methods was analysed using a house of quality matrix.

RESULTS

After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 76 articles were selected. Limitations were found to be associated with the 20 different methods described for NET tip localization. The method with the best combined sensitivity and specificity (where n > 1) was ultrasound/sonography, followed by external magnetic guidance, electromagnetic methods and then capnography/capnometry. The top three performance criteria that were considered most important for global applicability were cost per tube/disposable, success rate and cost for non-disposable components.

CONCLUSION

There is no ideal method for confirming NET tip localisation. While radiography (the gold standard used for comparison) and ultrasound were the most accurate methods, they are costly and not universally available. There remains the need to develop a low-cost, easy-use, accurate and reliable method for NET tip localization.

Electromagnetic-Guided Versus Endoscopic Placement of Nasojejunal Feeding Tubes After Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Prospective Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE

An altered anatomy such as after pancreatoduodenectomy is currently seen as relative contraindication for bedside electromagnetic (EM)-guided nasojejunal feeding tube placement. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility and safety of bedside EM-guided placement of nasojejunal feeding tubes as compared with endoscopy in patients after pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

We performed a prospective monocenter pilot study in patients requiring enteral feeding after pancreatoduodenectomy (July 2012-March 2014). Primary end point was the success rate of primary tube placement confirmed on plain abdominal x-ray followed by successful enteral feeding.

RESULTS

Overall, 53 (42%) of 126 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy required a nasojejunal feeding tube, of which 36 were placed under EM guidance and, in 17, it was placed by endoscopy. Initial tube placement was successful in 21 (58%) of 36 patients with EM guidance and 9 (53%) of 17 patients with endoscopy (P = 0.71). No complications occurred during the placement procedures. Dislodgement and/or blockage of the tube occurred in 14 (39%) of 36 patients in the EM-guided group and 8 (47%) of 17 patients in the endoscopic group (P = 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Bedside EM-guided placement of nasojejunal feeding tubes by nurses was equally successful as endoscopic placement in patients after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Electromagnetic Sensor-Guided Enteral Access Systems: A Literature Review

Enteral feeding is the nutritional support of choice for acutely ill patients with functional gastrointestinal tracts who are unable to swallow. Several benefits including reduced mortality and length of hospital stay have been associated with early initiation of enteral feeding. However, misplacement of conventional nasoenteric tubes is relatively common and can result in complications including pneumothorax. In addition, the need to confirm the position by X-ray can delay the start of using the tube. Eliminating these delays can help patients start feeding, and minimise the adverse impact on initiating hydration and medication. The purpose of this review was to critically examine whether electromagnetic sensor-guided enteral access systems (EMS-EAS) can help overcome the challenges of conventional nasoenteric feeding tube placement and confirmation. The Royal Society of Medicine's library performed two searches on Medline (1946-March 2014) and Embase (1947-March 2014) covering all papers on Cortrak or electromagnetic or magnetic guidance systems for feeding tubes in adults. Results from the literature search found an agreement between the radiographic and EMS-EAS confirmation of placement. EMS-EAS virtually eliminated the risk of misplacement and pneumothorax was not reported. In addition, studies showed a small decrease in the number of X-rays with EMS-EAS and a reduced average time to start feeding compared with blind placement. This review suggests that EMS-EAS reduces several complications associated with the misplacement of nasoenteric feeding tubes, and that there could be considerable improvements in mortality, morbidity, patient experience and cost if EMS-EAS is used instead of conventional methods.

Systematic review on bedside electromagnetic-guided, endoscopic, and fluoroscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes

BACKGROUND

Nasoenteral tube feeding is frequently required in hospitalized patients to either prevent or treat malnutrition, but data on the optimal strategy of tube placement are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of bedside electromagnetic (EM)-guided, endoscopic, and fluoroscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review of the literature.

PATIENTS

Adult hospitalized patients requiring nasoenteral feeding.

INTERVENTIONS

EM-guided, endoscopic, and/or fluoroscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Success rate of tube placement and procedure- or tube-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 354 screened articles, 28 studies were included. Data on 4056 patients undergoing EM-guided (n = 2921), endoscopic (n = 730), and/or fluoroscopic (n = 405) nasoenteral feeding tube placement were extracted. Tube placement was successful in 3202 of 3789 (85%) EM-guided procedures compared with 706 of 793 (89%) endoscopic and 413 of 446 (93%) fluoroscopic procedures. Reinsertion rates were similar for EM-guidance (270 of 1279 [21%] patients) and endoscopy (64 of 394 [16%] patients) or fluoroscopy (10 of 38 [26%] patients). The mean (standard deviation) procedure time was shortest with EM-guided placement (13.4 [12.9] minutes), followed by endoscopy and fluoroscopy (14.9 [8.7] and 16.2 [23.6] minutes, respectively). Procedure-related adverse events were infrequent (0.4%, 4%, and 3%, respectively) and included mainly epistaxis. The tube-related adverse event rate was lowest in the EM-guided group (36 of 242 [15%] patients), followed by fluoroscopy (40 of 191 [21%] patients) and endoscopy (115 of 384 [30%] patients) and included mainly dislodgment and blockage of the tube.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity and limited methodological quality of the included studies.

CONCLUSION

Bedside EM-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes appears to be as safe and effective as fluoroscopic or endoscopic placement. EM-guided tube placement by nurses may be preferred over more costly procedures performed by endoscopists or radiologists, but randomized studies are lacking.

Endoscopic versus bedside electromagnetic-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in surgical patients

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.

Effectiveness of an electromagnetic feeding tube placement device in detecting inadvertent respiratory placement

BACKGROUND

Use of technology capable of electromagnetically tracking advancement of a feeding tube on a monitoring screen during insertion may enable detection of deviation of the tube from the midline as it advances through the chest, possibly indicating entry of the tube into the right or left main bronchus.

PURPOSES

To describe (1) published peer-reviewed studies that report on the detection of malpositioned tubes inserted by an electromagnetic tube placement device, and (2) events reported to the US Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database regarding use of such a device.

METHODS

An Ovid MEDLINE search was conducted to locate peer-reviewed studies published between 2007 and 2012 that referred to use of an electromagnetic tube placement device to detect inadvertent respiratory placements of feeding tubes. In addition, an online search of the MAUDE database was conducted for the years 2007 through 2012.

RESULTS

The Ovid MEDLINE search yielded 6 studies that referred to respiratory placements; no cases of pneumothorax were reported. The MAUDE database search yielded 21 adverse events associated with use of an electromagnetic tube placement device (including 17 cases of pneumothorax and 2 deaths). As the MAUDE database relies on voluntary reports, this number should not be construed as the incidence of malpositioned tubes during this period.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability of clinicians to place feeding tubes correctly by using an electromagnetic tube placement device varies. Thus, it is reasonable to question the wisdom of eliminating radiographic confirmation of tube position before starting feedings.

Analysis of an electromagnetic tube placement device versus a self-advancing nasal jejunal device for postpyloric feeding tube placement

BACKGROUND

Initiation of enteral feeding is an important part of the best practice model for critically ill patients. Although nasogastric feeding is appropriate for the majority of patients requiring short-term nutrition support, certain patients benefit greatly from postpyloric feeding.

OBJECTIVE

To determine which of 2 specialized enteral tube systems achieved postpyloric placement on initial insertion attempt most efficiently.

DESIGN

Retrospective study comparing the Tiger 2 tube (T2T) and Cortrak Enteral Access System (C-EAS).

SETTING

Academic medical center, mixed intensive care unit (ICU).

PATIENTS

All patients admitted to the ICU between 2009 and 2013 who had either a C-EAS or T2T placed.

MEASUREMENTS

Success rate for postpyloric placement, congruency of real-time tube placement with x-ray confirmation for C-EAS, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Seventy-one T2T and 74 C-EAS patients were included. The T2T was postpyloric 62% (44/71) of attempted placements. C-EAS was postpyloric 43% (32/74) of attempted placements (P = 0.03). C-EAS tracings accurately reflected chest x-ray findings 83% and 82% for postpyloric and non-postpyloric insertion, respectively. During the entire study period, no adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSION

Our institution evaluated 2 different systems designed to ensure postpyloric placement of a small bore feeding tube. No literature exists directly comparing the 2 systems. Our retrospective review, although limited, showed that the T2T was more effective at postpyloric placement on first attempt. Although 1 benefit of the C-EAS system may be real-time visualization, our practice showed this system to be user dependent, which likely led to less success with postpyloric placement.

[Nutrition and gastrointestinal intolerance]

The functional integrity of the gastrointestinal tract is an essential prerequisite in intensive care patients for the sufficient administration of enteral nutrition. Up to 65% of patients in intensive care units develop symptoms of gastrointestinal dysfunction with high residual gastric volume, vomiting and abdominal distension. The pathophysiological alterations of gastrointestinal intolerance and the subsequent effect on the tolerance of enteral nutrition can affect the whole gastrointestinal tract. Gastroduodenal motility disorders in particular, with increased gastroesophageal reflux lead to intolerance. In more than 90% of intensive care patients with gastrointestinal motility disorders an adequate postpyloric enteral nutrition can be carried out using a jejunal tube. In addition to improved tolerance of enteral nutrition this leads to a reduction of gastroesophageal reflux and the incidence of ventilation-associated pneumonia. Apart from the possibility of endoscopic application of the jejunal tube, alternative techniques were developed which allow a faster positioning of the jejunal tube with less complications. Furthermore, there are therapeutic options for improvement of gastrointestinal motility disorders and apart from general measures, also medicinal options for treatment of gastrointestinal intolerance which allow a sufficient enteral nutrition for intensive care patients.

Nasopharyngeal perforation by a new electromagnetically visualised enteral feeding tube

Enteral nutrition is the preferred route of feeding in critically ill patients. It has multiple advantages over parenteral nutrition and potentially improves patients' outcome. Enteral nutrition is delivered via gastric or postpyloric (small intestine) feeding tubes. The latter option used to be a more challenging choice to achieve unless the feeding tube is placed endoscopically or by interventional radiology. Multiple technical advances have facilitated postpyloric feeding, including a new electromagnetically visualised jejunal feeding tube system (CORTRAK Enteral Access System). We are presenting a case of a 50-year-old woman who suffered a nasopharyngeal perforation caused by this novel technology. The complication was recognised promptly and managed successfully with conservative measures. This case illustrates the importance of recognising patients at high risk for feeding tube placement complications, meticulous placement technique and appropriate follow-up once the tube has been inserted.

Endoscopic clip-assisted feeding tube placement reduces repeat endoscopy rate: results from a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether endoscopic clip-assisted nasoenteral feeding tube placement is more effective than standard feeding tube placement with transnasal endoscopy.

METHODS

Between August 2009 and February 2011, 143 patients referred for endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement were randomized between clip-assisted and standard nasoenteral tube placement. Endoscopies were performed in the endoscopy unit and intensive care unit in a tertiary referral center in the Netherlands. For the clip-assisted procedure, the feeding tube was introduced with a suture fixed to the tip, picked up in the stomach with an endoclip and attached (as distal as possible) to the duodenal wall. In the standard group, a guide wire was placed in the duodenum using a transnasal endoscope, followed by blind insertion of a feeding tube over the guide wire. Primary end point was a repeat endoscopy for incorrect tube placement or spontaneous retrograde tube migration. Secondary end points were incorrect tube placement, spontaneous migration of feeding tube, directs medical costs, and procedure-related (serious) adverse event (SAE).

RESULTS

Of the 143 patients included, 71 were randomly assigned to clip-assisted tube placement, and 72 to standard tube placement. Four (5.6%) repeat endoscopies were performed in the clip-assisted group vs. 19 (26.4%) in the standard group (relative risk reduction (RRR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40-0.92). The number needed to clip to avoid one repeat endoscopy was 4.8 (95% CI 3.1-11.3). Repeat endoscopies were mostly performed for incorrectly placed tubes, 3 (4.2%) in the clip-assisted group vs. 16 (22.2%, RRR 0.81; 95% CI 0.38-0.94) in the standard group. Spontaneous retrograde tube migration occurred in one (1.4%) clip-assisted placement and three (4.2%) standard tubes. Median costs were higher for clip-assisted tube placement (€519 vs. €423, P<0.01). Four (5.6%) SAEs occurred after clip-assisted feeding tube placement vs. one (1.4%) after standard feeding tube placement (P=0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Clip-assisted endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement results in fewer repeat endoscopies than standard endoscopic nasoenteral tube placement, due to a higher success rate of initial placement. When tubes are adequately placed, retrograde tube migration rarely occurs.

Gastrointestinal dysmotility: clinical consequences and management of the critically ill patient

Gastrointestinal dysmotility is a common feature of critical illness, with a number of significant implications that include malnutrition secondary to reduced feed tolerance and absorption, reflux and aspiration resulting in reduced lung function and ventilator-associated pneumonia, bacterial overgrowth and possible translocation causing nosocomial sepsis. Prokinetic agent administration can improve gastric emptying and caloric delivery, but its effect on nutrient absorption and clinical outcomes is, as yet, unclear. Postpyloric delivery of nutrition has not yet been demonstrated to increase caloric intake or improve clinical outcomes.