Nasoenteral feeding tube placement by nurses using an electromagnetic guidance system (with video)

Beyond the gut: spectrum of magnetic surgery devices

Since the 1970s, magnetic force has been used to augment modern surgical techniques with the aims of minimizing surgical trauma and optimizing minimally-invasive systems. The majority of current clinical applications for magnetic surgery are largely centered around gastrointestinal uses-such as gastrointestinal or bilioenteric anastomosis creation, stricturoplasty, sphincter augmentation, and the guidance of nasoenteric feeding tubes. However, as the field of magnetic surgery continues to advance, the development and clinical implementation of magnetic devices has expanded to treat a variety of non-gastrointestinal disorders including musculoskeletal (pectus excavatum, scoliosis), respiratory (obstructive sleep apnea), cardiovascular (coronary artery stenosis, end-stage renal disease), and genitourinary (stricture, nephrolithiasis) conditions. The purpose of this review is to discuss the current state of innovative magnetic surgical devices under clinical investigation or commercially available for the treatment of non-gastrointestinal disorders.

The Evolving Use of Magnets in Surgery: Biomedical Considerations and a Review of Their Current Applications

The novel use of magnetic force to optimize modern surgical techniques originated in the 1970s. Since then, magnets have been utilized as an adjunct or alternative to a wide array of existing surgical procedures, ranging from gastrointestinal to vascular surgery. As the use of magnets in surgery continues to grow, the body of knowledge on magnetic surgical devices from preclinical development to clinical implementation has expanded significantly; however, the current magnetic surgical devices can be organized based on their core function: serving as a guidance system, creating a new connection, recreating a physiologic function, or utilization of an internal–external paired magnet system. The purpose of this article is to discuss the biomedical considerations during magnetic device development and review the current surgical applications of magnetic devices.

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.

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.

Evaluation of a Nasoenteral Feeding Tube With Balloon to Facilitate Placement

BACKGROUND

Enteral feeding is essential for critically ill, head trauma, and burn patients who are unable to swallow.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a new nasoenteral feeding tube with distal tip balloon designed to facilitate post-pyloric migration and avoid misplacement in the trachea.

METHODS

A case series was conducted in 50 critically ill patients aged 19 to 89 years receiving mechanical ventilation and requiring enteral nutrition in a teaching hospital. Patients received a soft, flexible, kink-resistant nasoenteral feeding tube with a balloon near the distal tip to enhance postpyloric migration by peristalsis. The feeding tube was inserted with a novel thread technique to reduce posterior nasopharyngeal trauma and tube misplacement. Pulse oximetry provided early detection of misplacement into the trachea. Placement was verified by abdominal radiography performed shortly after the procedure and repeated within 24 hours if needed.

RESULTS

Postpyloric placement was achieved at 30 minutes in 24% of patients and by the following morning in 70% of patients. Tracheal intubation occurred in 1 patient but was recognized and corrected without injury. No tube occlusion from kinking occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Early gastric or postpyloric feeding can be provided with this novel feeding tube. Its use facilitates quick bedside recognition of accidental misplacement in the trachea, reducing the chance of pneumothorax. The tip balloon reduces deeper placement into a lung and promotes distal migration into the small intestine. The design prevents occlusion from kinking, which is common with conventional feeding tubes. Nurses easily adopted the tube and insertion technique.

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.

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.

Erythromycin versus metoclopramide for post-pyloric spiral nasoenteric tube placement: a randomized non-inferiority trial

Purpose

To determine whether erythromycin is non-inferior to metoclopramide in facilitating post-pyloric placement of self-propelled spiral nasoenteric tubes (NETs) in critically ill patients.

Methods

A prospective, multicenter, open-label, parallel, and non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing erythromycin with metoclopramide in facilitating post-pyloric placement of spiral NETs in critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) of eight tertiary hospitals in China. The primary outcome was procedure success defined as post-pyloric placement (spiral NETs reached the first portion of the duodenum or beyond confirmed by abdominal radiography 24 h after tube insertion).

Results

A total of 5688 patients were admitted to the ICUs. Of these, in 355 patients there was a plan to insert a nasoenteric feeding tube, of whom 332 were randomized, with 167 patients assigned to the erythromycin group and 165 patients assigned to the metoclopramide group. The success rate of post-pyloric placement was 57.5% (96/167) in the erythromycin group, as compared with 50.3% (83/165) in the metoclopramide group (a difference of 7.2%, 95% CI − 3.5% to 17.9%), in the intention-to-treat analysis, not including the prespecified margin of − 10% for non-inferiority. The success rates of post-D1 (reaching the second portion of the duodenum or beyond), post-D2 (reaching the third portion of the duodenum or beyond), post-D3 (reaching the fourth portion of the duodenum or beyond), and proximal jejunum placement and the incidence of any adverse events were not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusions

Erythromycin is non-inferior to metoclopramide in facilitating post-pyloric placement of spiral NETs in critically ill patients. The success rates of post-D1, post-D2, post-D3, and proximal jejunum placement were not significantly different.

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.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12876-018-0766-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.).

Blind bedside postpyloric placement of spiral tube as rescue therapy in critically ill patients: a prospective, tricentric, observational study

Background

Various special techniques for blind bedside transpyloric tube placement have been introduced into clinical practice. However, transpyloric spiral tube placement facilitated by a blind bedside method has not yet been reported. The objective of this prospective study was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of blind bedside postpyloric placement of a spiral tube as a rescue therapy subsequent to failed spontaneous transpyloric migration in critically ill patients.

Methods

This prospective, tricentric, observational study was conducted in the intensive care units (ICUs) of three tertiary hospitals. A total of 127 consecutive patients with failed spontaneous transpyloric spiral tube migration despite using prokinetic agents and still required enteral nutrition for more than 3 days were included. The spiral tube was inserted postpylorically using the blind bedside technique. All patients received metoclopramide intravenously prior to tube insertion. The exact tube tip position was determined by radiography. The primary efficacy endpoint was the success rate of postpyloric spiral tube placement. Secondary efficacy endpoints were success rate of a spiral tube placed in the third portion of the duodenum (D3) or beyond, success rate of placement in the proximal jejunum, time to insertion, length of insertion, and number of attempts. Safety endpoints were metoclopramide-related and major adverse tube-associated events.

Results

In 81.9% of patients, the spiral feeding tubes were placed postpylorically; of these, 55.1% were placed in D3 or beyond and 33.9% were placed in the proximal jejunum, with a median time to insertion of 14 min and an average number of attempts of 1.4. The mean length of insertion was 95.6 cm. The adverse event incidence was 26.0%, and no serious adverse event was observed.

Conclusions

Blind bedside postpyloric placement of a spiral tube, as a rescue therapy subsequent to failed spontaneous transpyloric migration in critically ill patients, is safe and effective. This technique may facilitate the early initiation of postpyloric feeding in the ICU.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR-OPN-16008206. Registered on 1 April 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.

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.

Gastric Versus Small Bowel Feeding in Critically Ill Adults

Critically ill patients often require enteral feedings as a primary supply of nutrition. Whether enteral nutrition (EN) should be delivered as a gastric versus small bowel feeding in the critically ill patient population remains a contentious topic. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM)/American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), the European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN), and the Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines (CCPG) are not in consensus on this topic. No research to date demonstrates a significant difference between the two feeding routes in terms of patient mortality, ventilator days, or length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU); however, studies provide some evidence that there may be other benefits to using a small bowel feeding route in critically ill patients. The purpose of this paper is to examine both sides of this debate and review advantages and disadvantages of both small bowel and gastric routes of EN. Practical issues and challenges to small bowel feeding tube placement are also addressed. Finally, recommendations are provided to help guide the clinician when selecting a feeding route, and suggestions are made for future research.

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 Guided Postpyloric Tube Placement in Children: A Feasible and Promising Technique

OBJECTIVES

Postpyloric feeding tube (PPFT) placement can be cumbersome. Fluoroscopic and endoscopic placements are required when unguided placement fails. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of PPFT placement in children, using an electromagnetic (EM) guided system as a rescue strategy in case unguided tube insertion fails.

METHODS

In a single-center prospective study, we included all the children (weight >2.5 kg) in whom unguided PPFT placement failed between 2009 and 2012. EM guided PPFT placement was attempted before regular fluoroscopic and endoscopic placement was attempted, respectively.

RESULTS

Forty-nine children were included (mean age 3.5 years). EM guided PPFT placement was successful in 82% of the children. No adverse events occurred. Age or indication for the PPFT did not influence the success rate of the procedure. A trend of a learning curve of 25 patients was noticed. Costs of EM placement were slightly higher than those of fluoroscopic placement in our hospital setting.

CONCLUSION

With enough expertise, EM guided PPFT placement seems safe and can prevent fluoroscopic or endoscopic tube placement in 82% of children.

Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial of Fecal Transplantation for Patients With Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Several case series have reported the effects of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for ulcerative colitis (UC). We assessed the efficacy and safety of FMT for patients with UC in a double-blind randomized trial.

METHODS

Patients with mild to moderately active UC (n = 50) were assigned to groups that underwent FMT with feces from healthy donors or were given autologous fecal microbiota (control); each transplant was administered via nasoduodenal tube at the start of the study and 3 weeks later. The study was performed at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam from June 2011 through May 2014. The composite primary end point was clinical remission (simple clinical colitis activity index scores ≤2) combined with ≥1-point decrease in the Mayo endoscopic score at week 12. Secondary end points were safety and microbiota composition by phylogenetic microarray in fecal samples.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients completed the primary end point assessment. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 7 of 23 patients who received fecal transplants from healthy donors (30.4%) and 5 of 25 controls (20.0%) achieved the primary end point (P = .51). In the per-protocol analysis, 7 of 17 patients who received fecal transplants from healthy donors (41.2%) and 5 of 20 controls (25.0%) achieved the primary end point (P = .29). Serious adverse events occurred in 4 patients (2 in the FMT group), but these were not considered to be related to the FMT. At 12 weeks, the microbiota of responders in the FMT group was similar to that of their healthy donors; remission was associated with proportions of Clostridium clusters IV and XIVa.

CONCLUSIONS

In this phase 2 trial, there was no statistically significant difference in clinical and endoscopic remission between patients with UC who received fecal transplants from healthy donors and those who received their own fecal microbiota, which may be due to limited numbers. However, the microbiota of responders had distinct features from that of nonresponders, warranting further study. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01650038.

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.

Electromagnetic tracking in medicine--a review of technology, validation, and applications

Object tracking is a key enabling technology in the context of computer-assisted medical interventions. Allowing the continuous localization of medical instruments and patient anatomy, it is a prerequisite for providing instrument guidance to subsurface anatomical structures. The only widely used technique that enables real-time tracking of small objects without line-of-sight restrictions is electromagnetic (EM) tracking. While EM tracking has been the subject of many research efforts, clinical applications have been slow to emerge. The aim of this review paper is therefore to provide insight into the future potential and limitations of EM tracking for medical use. We describe the basic working principles of EM tracking systems, list the main sources of error, and summarize the published studies on tracking accuracy, precision and robustness along with the corresponding validation protocols proposed. State-of-the-art approaches to error compensation are also reviewed in depth. Finally, an overview of the clinical applications addressed with EM tracking is given. Throughout the paper, we report not only on scientific progress, but also provide a review on commercial systems. Given the continuous debate on the applicability of EM tracking in medicine, this paper provides a timely overview of the state-of-the-art in the field.

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.

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.

[Postpyloric feeding tubes for surgical intensive care patients. Pilot series to evaluate two methods for bedside placement]

Bedside placement of postpyloric feeding tubes in surgical intensive care patients: a pilot series to evaluate two methods. Early enteral feeding is thought to be a key factor in maintaining the integrity of the gastrointestinal tract mucosal barrier associated with less bacterial translocation and decreased stimulation of the systemic inflammatory response and subsequent improved outcome in intensive care patients. Thus enteral feeding by nasogastric tubes is the preferred route of nutritional support for most surgical intensive care patients. However, intensive care patients with delayed gastric emptying and poor intestinal motility may not tolerate gastric feeding and may therefore benefit from postpyloric feeding. Postpyloric feeding tube placement may be achieved by endoscopic procedures or different bedside techniques with variable success. In the present study two feeding tubes for bedside postpyloric placement without endoscopic assistance were compared. The time to successful positioning was compared for jejunal feeding tubes from the companies Cook (Tiger 2™) and PortaMedical (Corflo-Tube®). The description for the Tiger 2™ states that because of its design slight residual peristalsis can cause it to migrate from the stomach to the jejunum. The Corflo-Tube® is also positioned at the bedside with the help of a detector and a monitor which maps the movements of the magnetic tip of the mandrin as it is pushed forward. Patients receiving early enteral nutrition through a gastric tube and exhibiting enhanced reflux, in spite of the head of the bed being raised and the administration of prokinetics randomly received either a Tiger 2™ or a Corflo-Tube®. The study included 41 patients from an intensive care ward for surgical patients and 13 out of 20 Tiger 2™-Tubes (65%) and 16 out of 21 Corflo-Tubes® (76%) were successfully positioned (p>0.05). The median time to successful positioning with the Corflo-Tubes® was 0.83 h (range 0.06-2.5 h), which was significantly shorter than the 24 h (range 2-72 h) found with the Tiger 2™ (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the period between the insertion of the tubes and the attainment of complete enteral nutrition, corresponding to the calculated individual calorie requirements. These tubes offer a good alternative to more demanding procedures as they are easy to handle and rapidly available. They confer clinical and cost advantages in terms of the early establishment of enteral feeding, no routine X-ray confirmation in the case of the Corflo-Tube® and avoidance of endoscopic guidance for tube placement or parenteral nutrition. In addition they are always justified in the event of a lack of endoscopic positioning.