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

Effectiveness of techniques for insertion of nasoenteral probe in critical patients: Randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

despite being a common procedure, nasally placed small-bowel feeding tube insertion is not risk-free and can compromise patient safety. Due to the fact that nasally placed small-bowel feeding tube is commonly inserted '"blindly," with the patient head in the neutral position, sometimes the process becomes difficult and traumatic, and may present higher level of complexity in physiological or induced coma and intubated patients. Therefore, adverse events (AEs) route errors can occur during this procedure. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of different nasally placed small-bowel feeding tube insertion techniques in coma and intubated patients, in comparison with conventional method.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized and controlled clinical trial will be carried out with coma and intubated patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Thirty-nine patients will be randomly divided into 3 groups: group who will have the tube inserted in a conventional manner with the head in the neutral position, group with the head positioned laterally to the right, and, finally, with the head in the neutral position, with assistance of a laryngoscope. The primary endpoint will be: first, second and total attempt success rate; and time required for the first successful attempt and the sum of all attempts. Complications during insertion included tube bending, twisting, knotting, mucosal bleeding, and insertion into the trachea. Patient vital signs will be measured.

Using an Electromagnetic Guidance System for Placement of Small-Bowel Feeding Tubes to Reduce Feeding Start Times

BACKGROUND

Cardiothoracic surgery patients have an increased risk for aspiration and may require enteral access for nutrition.

LOCAL PROBLEM

In a cardiothoracic intensive care unit, feeding start times were delayed because of scheduling conflicts with support services. An electromagnetic device (Cortrak 2 Enteral Access System, Avanos Medical) was introduced to allow advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) to independently establish postpyloric access and reduce dependence on ancillary services.

METHODS

A quality improvement study was performed. Pre- and postimplementation data included order time, service arrival, tube placement time, tube positioning, and feeding start times for 207 placements. Pre- and postimplementation surveys were conducted to evaluate advanced practice provider satisfaction with enteral tube placement practices.

RESULTS

Feeding start time for initial placement decreased by 35.5% (15.6 hours to 10 hours); for subsequent placement, by 55.2% (15.5 hours to 7.0 hours). Assistance by support services decreased by 80.4% (before implementation, 100 of 100 placements [100%]; after implementation, 21 of 107 placements [19.6%]; P < .001; ϕ = 0.815). Overall, advanced practice provider satisfaction increased. Most participants said that using the electromagnetic device was faster, nutrition was delivered sooner, and implementation was a valuable practice change.

CONCLUSIONS

Using an electromagnetic device decreased feeding start times, reduced the need for support services, and increased advanced practice provider satisfaction with small-bowel feeding tube placement practices.

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.

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.

Risks in Management of Enteral Nutrition in Intensive Care Units: A Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis

Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) have a high risk of developing malnutrition, and this is associated with poorer clinical outcomes. In clinical practice, nutrition, including enteral nutrition (EN), is often not prioritized. Resulting from this, risks and safety issues for patients and healthcare professionals can emerge. The aim of this literature review, inspired by the Rapid Review Guidebook by Dobbins, 2017, was to identify risks and safety issues for patient safety in the management of EN in critically ill patients in the ICU. Three databases were used to identify studies between 2009 and 2020. We assessed 3495 studies for eligibility and included 62 in our narrative synthesis. Several risks and problems were identified: No use of clinical assessment or screening nutrition assessment, inadequate tube management, missing energy target, missing a nutritionist, bad hygiene and handling, wrong time management and speed, nutritional interruptions, wrong body position, gastrointestinal complication and infections, missing or not using guidelines, understaffing, and lack of education. Raising awareness of these risks is a central aspect in patient safety in ICU. Clinical experts can use a checklist with 12 identified top risks and the recommendations drawn up to carry out their own risk analysis in clinical practice.

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.