Factors associated with fluoroscopy-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes

Blind versus endoscopy-guided postpyloric feeding tube placement in adults with ischemic stroke: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study compared the one-time success rate of blind and endoscopy-guided postpyloric feeding tube placement after implementing a comprehensive nursing scheme of intestinal blind placement for patients with ischemic stroke.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 179 patients with blind bedside placement and 118 with endoscopy-guided placement. The primary outcome was the one-time success rate of radiologically confirmed postpyloric placement. The secondary endpoints included the position of the tube tip, length of insertion, time of placement, and expenses. The safety endpoints were the incidence of complications caused by placement.

RESULTS

The results showed that the method of tube placement did not significantly affect the outcome of the first tube placement (odds ratio [OR] = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.137-1.207; P = 0.105). Compared with endoscopy-guided placement, blind placement was half the cost. We also found that a history of abdominal surgery (OR = 0.003; 95% CI  = 0.000-0.059; P < 0.001) and longer intensive care unit (ICU) days (OR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.903-0.981; P = 0.004) were inversely associated with the one-time success rate.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggested that blind intestinal feeding tube placement has an equivalent one-time success rate compared with endoscopy-guided placement in hospitalized patients with ischemic stroke if operators can be trained well. However, the expenses of endoscopy-guided placement were twice those of blind bedside methods. We also found that patients with abdominal surgery history and longer ICU stay were more likely to fail at the first placement. Further research is needed to replicate our single-center observations in a larger population of patients.

Small bowel feeding: do you pay the price for bypassing the stomach?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hydration and nutritional support is a vital part of medical care, thus a clear understanding of the optimal approach is vital for medical professionals. This is a particularly pertinent issue for patients admitted to a critical care setting. This article aims to define the advantages and disadvantages of gastric and postpyloric feeding in the critical care setting, thus aiding decision-making for clinicians.

RECENT FINDINGS

Within the article, the main themes covered are those relating to enteral feeding tube placement, the impact of enteral feeding route on ventilator-associated pneumonia, optimization of enteral tube feeding in critical care and the impact that a chosen route may have upon gastrointestinal function.

SUMMARY

The value of enteral feeding in critical illness is proven beyond doubt and the simplest approach has long been 'if the gut works, use it'. If gastric feeding is not able to be established or is not tolerated then jejunal feeding should be considered as a preferable alternative to parenteral nutrition. Improving access to service or techniques for postpyloric tube placement would assist in optimizing nutritional support in the critical care setting.