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

Choosing wisely: Enteral feeding tube selection, placement, and considerations before and beyond the procedure room

When an enteral feeding tube (EFT) is placed, it is not always known how long this nutrition support intervention will be needed. As a result, the type of device the patient originally has placed may not match the function it is required to serve or the lifestyle needs of the patient throughout their enteral nutrition journey. Medicare considers an EFT a prosthetic device, as it is replacing a permanently inoperable or nonfunctioning organ. If we think about an EFT the same way we think about a prosthetic limb, one that needs to be customized to meet all of the patient's functional and lifestyle needs, we can also begin to think beyond the procedure room and carefully consider a variety of factors that impact the patient at home receiving enteral nutrition. Proper fit, function, and style is essential in order for the patient to have a positive relationship with their EFT, contributing to their successful home enteral nutrition experience. Clinicians who care for these patients in any setting and in any capacity would benefit from enhancing their understanding of available EFT options, their design components, and available methods of placement. Many home care and outpatient clinicians adopt the role of patient advocate as it relates to a patient's enteral nutrition journey, and this expanded knowledge could be used to benefit the patient by improving their overall enteral nutrition experience and ultimately their relationship with their "prosthetic."

Postpyloric Feeding Access in Infants and Children: A State of the Art Review

Achieving postpyloric feeding access is a clinical challenge faced by the pediatric gastroenterologist in everyday practice. Currently, there is limited literature published on the topic. This article provides a practical summary of the literature on the different methods utilized to achieve postpyloric feeding access including bedside, fluoroscopic, endoscopic and surgical options. Indications and complications of these methods are discussed as well as a general approach to infants and children that require intestinal feeding.

Review of Traumatic Duodenal Injuries: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Management

Traumatic duodenal injuries are rare and often challenging to diagnose and treat. Management of these injuries remains controversial and continues to evolve. Here, we performed a review of the literature and guidelines for the diagnosis and management of traumatic duodenal injuries.

A common recommendation in more recent literature is primary, tension-free repair of duodenal injuries when possible if surgical repair is necessary. Conversely, if duodenal injuries are unamenable to primary repair, more complex procedures such as Roux-en-Y duodenojejunostomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy may be necessary. Regardless of injury grade or type of surgical repair, the literature continues to support wide extraluminal drainage. Over time, the management of complex duodenal injuries has evolved to favor simple primary repair whenever possible. According to recent studies, more complex procedures are associated with higher rates of post-operative complications and should be reserved for severe injuries when primary repair is not possible.

Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients - Part 2: Peri- and post-procedural management. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

ESGE recommends the "pull" technique as the standard method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the direct percutaneous introducer ("push") technique for PEG placement in cases where the "pull" method is contraindicated, for example in severe esophageal stenosis or in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) or esophageal cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the intravenous administration of a prophylactic single dose of a beta-lactam antibiotic (or appropriate alternative antibiotic, in the case of allergy) to decrease the risk of post-procedural wound infection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends that inadvertent insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) into the respiratory tract should be considered a serious but avoidable adverse event (AE).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that each institution should have a dedicated protocol to confirm correct positioning of NGTs placed "blindly" at the patient's bedside; this should include: radiography, pH testing of the aspirate, and end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring, but not auscultation alone.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends confirmation of correct NGT placement by radiography in high-risk patients (intensive care unit [ICU] patients or those with altered consciousness or absent gag/cough reflex).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that EN may be started within 3 - 4 hours after uncomplicated placement of a PEG or PEG-J.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends that daily tube mobilization (pushing inward) along with a loose position of the external PEG bumper (1 - 2 cm from the abdominal wall) could mitigate the risk of development of buried bumper syndrome.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic Nasoenteral Feeding Tube Fixation with Hemoclip Reduces Tube Dislodgement

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Spontaneous retrograde migration of nasoenteral feeding tubes is common in clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of nasoenteral feeding tube tip fixation with hemoclips to prevent tube dislodgement.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent insertion of an endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube with or without tube tip fixation with hemoclips at the Asan Medical Center in Korea from January 2016 to December 2017. We compared the incidence of tube dislodgment and procedure-related complications between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of the total 225 procedures, 72 were performed using the clip-assisted method, while 153 were performed using the standard non-clip-assisted method. Tube dislodgement occurred in two (2.8%) cases in the clipping group and in 26 (17.0%) in the non-clipping group (p = 0.003). Non-clipping group had a sevenfold higher risk of tube dislodgement compared to clipping group after adjustments in multivariable logistic regression (adjusted OR 7.97, 95% CI 1.82-35.00). The procedure time was not significantly different between the two groups (17.6 ± 8.5 min in the clipping group vs. 17.8 ± 9.4 min in the non-clipping group, p = 0.872). In addition, procedure-related complications, such as bleeding, aspiration pneumonia, Mallory-Weiss tear, ileus, and tube obstruction, were not different between the two groups. Achieving target calorie intake took 10.4 ± 10.5 days in the clipping group and 7.9 ± 7.9 days in the non-clipping group (p = 0.293).

CONCLUSION

Clip-assisted fixation of nasoenteral feeding tube was effective in preventing tube dislodgement.

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.).

Over-the-scope-clip system secured nasojejunal tube feeding in refractory hyperemesis gravidarum

Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is a severe form of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. It complicates up to 2% of all pregnancies and can be associated with adverse outcomes. Its management commonly involves a combination pharmacotherapy, however, the efficacy of such treatment is limited. Supplemental nutrition is often required in refractory cases. Enteral route is preferred over parenteral, given the high rate of intravenous catheter-related complications. Enteral feeding tube placement can be challenging and is commonly thwarted by dislodgement. We present a pharmacotherapy refractory HG case where the over-the-scope-clip (OTSC) system was successfully used for durable mucosal fixation of the nasojejunal feeding tube.

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.

A novel ballooned-tip percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy tube: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

The tip of currently available percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy (PEGJ) tubes frequently migrates back into the stomach.

OBJECTIVE

To study the safety of a novel, ballooned-tip, PEGJ tube and assess the risk of retrograde migration into the stomach within 3 weeks of placement.

DESIGN

Prospective clinical study (NCT01551095).

SETTING

Tertiary-care center.

PATIENTS

Seven patients who required post-pyloric feeding were included.

INTERVENTION

Placement of PEGJ feeding tubes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Position of the PEGJ, abdominal radiograph findings, adverse events.

RESULTS

Seven patients underwent placement of self-propelled PEGJ tubes during the study period. Technical success was achieved in all patients (100%). All procedures were rated as technically simple, and jejunostomy tubes were placed in <5 minutes during all procedures. Abdominal radiographs showed that the jejunostomy tubes were in the jejunum in all 7 patients at both 1 and 3 weeks after tube placement.

LIMITATIONS

Small number of patients and short follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Ballooned-tip PEGJ feeding tubes were safe and easy to place. The presence of the balloon prevented migration into the stomach. Ballooned-tip PEGJ tubes have the potential to eliminate the need for hospital readmission and repeat endoscopies for retrograde tube migration, and this may result in large systemic cost savings.