Electromagnetic guided bedside or endoscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in surgical patients (CORE trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

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.

Nutrition Therapy in Non-intubated Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A challenging aspect of the care for patients with acute respiratory failure is their nutrition management. This manuscript consists of a literature review on nutrition therapy in non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure receiving high-flow nasal cannula oxygenation or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies show that non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure either on non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula are largely underfed in the initial phase of their hospitalization. Although data is limited, the available evidence suggests the feasibility of initiating oral diet in the majority of these patients in the early phase. Initial evaluation includes mental status evaluation, the Yale swallowing screening protocol, and an assessment of severity of illness. The goal should be to initiate oral diet within 24 h. If patient cannot initiate oral diet, the reason for not initiating oral diet should dictate the next step. For instance, if the reason is failure of the swallow screening, further evaluation with fiberoptic endoscopy is warranted. The inability to provide oral diet for a patient in respiratory distress may a harbinger of failure of non-invasive oxygen therapy and should prompt consideration for endotracheal intubation. We suggest placement of a small-bore feeding tube for enteral nutrition if patient is unable receive oral diet after 48 h.

CONCLUSIONS

The nutrition management of these patients is better provided by a multidisciplinary team in a protocolized manner.

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.

Cortrak® duodenal tube placements: A solution for more patients? A preliminary survey to the introduction of electromagnetic-guided placement of naso-duodenal feeding tubes

RATIONALE

The Cortrak^® feeding tube, an electromagnetic (EM) guided feeding tube which is placed by a trained nurse at the patient's bedside, is reported to be a safe, patient friendly and cost effective answer to the disadvantages of endoscopic placement of naso-duodenal feeding tubes. However, this procedure requires a learning curve and regular practice. This study aims to evaluate whether introducing Cortrak® feeding tube placement would be profitable in a tertiary referral academic hospital.

METHODS

We re-evaluated all endoscopically placed post-pyloric feeding tubes in the years 2012-2013. Taking into consideration training for nurses to learn how to place Cortrak® feeding tubes, strict inclusion criteria were formulated for the initial retrospective analysis: age 18 years or older, normal GI anatomy and non-ICU admitted patients. As a secondary analysis we also evaluated ICU patients (age >18 and normal upper GI tract).

RESULTS

Patient records of 487 duodenal feeding tube placements in 331 patients were evaluated; 125 non-ICU placements (in 90 patients) and 84 ICU placements (in 75 ICU patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Main reasons for exclusion were: abnormalities of the upper GI tract (n = 176) and endoscopy for diagnostic reasons (n = 74). Main indications for placements were gastroparesis (37%) or insufficient food intake (20%). For secondary analysis, 84 placements in 75 ICU patients were re-evaluated, with main indication gastroparesis (62%).

CONCLUSION

In our hospital, at least one quarter of the duodenal tube placements would qualify for Cortrak® placement in the initial phase. Once routine has been built up and also ICU patients could be considered, half or more patients requiring a naso-duodenal feeding tube would qualify for Cortrak® placement, adding up to 3 placements per week. The findings of this study may help to decide on the profitability of introducing this method in our own hospital. The next step will be to perform a cost-benefit analysis to study whether implementing Cortrak® in practice is cost-effective and feasible.

Gastric versus postpyloric enteral nutrition in elderly patients (age ≥ 75 years) on mechanical ventilation: a single-center randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is reduced when postpyloric enteral nutrition (EN) is administered compared to when gastric EN is administered in specific populations. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that postpyloric EN is superior to gastric EN in reducing the incidence of VAP in elderly patients (age ≥ 75 years) who are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and require mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

We performed a single-center randomized clinical trial involving elderly patients (age ≥ 75 years) who were admitted to the ICU and required mechanical ventilation. The patients were randomly assigned to either the postpyloric EN group or the gastric EN group. The primary outcome was the VAP rate.

RESULTS

Of the 836 patients screened, 141 patients were included in the study (70 in the postpyloric EN group and 71 in the gastric EN group). The patients in the postpyloric EN group were 82.0 (75.0-99.0) years old (male 61.4%), and those in the gastric EN group were 82.0 (75.0-92.0) years old (male 63.4%). The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were 28.09 ± 6.75 in the postpyloric EN group and 27.80 ± 7.60 in the gastric EN group (P = 0.43). VAP was observed in 8 of 70 patients (11.4%) in the postpyloric EN group and in 18 of 71 patients (25.4%) in the gastric EN group, which resulted in a significant between-group difference (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15-0.94; P = 0.04). In the postpyloric EN group, there were significant reductions in vomiting (12 patients in the postpyloric EN group vs 29 patients in the gastric EN group; OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14-0.65; P = 0.002) and abdominal distension (18 patients in the postpyloric EN group vs 33 patients in the gastric EN group; OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.81; P = 0.01). No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding mortality and other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that, compared with gastric EN, postpyloric EN reduced the VAP rate among elderly patients who were admitted to the ICU and required mechanical ventilation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR-IPR-16008485 . Registered on 17 May 2016.

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.