Electromagnetic-Guided Versus Endoscopic Placement of Nasojejunal Feeding Tubes After Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Prospective Pilot Study

Bedside naso-jejunal placement is more difficult, but successful in patients with COVID-19 in critical care: A retrospective service evaluation of a dietitian-led service

The COVID-19 pandemic presented clinical and logistical challenges in the delivery of adequate nutrition in the critical care setting. The use of neuromuscular-blocking drugs, presence of maxilla-facial oedema, strict infection control procedures, and patients placed in a prone position complicated feeding tube placement. We audited the outcomes of dietitian-led naso-jejunal tube (NJT) insertions using the IRIS® (Kangaroo, USA) device, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. NJT placement was successful in 78% of all cases (n = 50), and 87% of COVID-19 cases. Anaesthetic support was only required in COVID-19 patients (53%). NJT placement using IRIS was more difficult but achievable in patients with COVID-19.

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.

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.

Nutritional support and therapy in pancreatic surgery: A position paper of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS)

BACKGROUND

The optimal nutritional therapy in the field of pancreatic surgery is still debated.

METHODS

An international panel of recognized pancreatic surgeons and pancreatologists decided that the topic of nutritional support was of importance in pancreatic surgery. Thus, they reviewed the best contemporary literature and worked to develop a position paper to provide evidence supporting the integration of appropriate nutritional support into the overall management of patients undergoing pancreatic resection. Strength of recommendation and quality of evidence were based on the approach of the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation Working Group.

RESULTS

The measurement of nutritional status should be part of routine preoperative assessment because malnutrition is a recognized risk factor for surgery-related complications. In addition to patient's weight loss and body mass index, measurement of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity should be considered in the preoperative evaluation because they are strong predictors of poor short-term and long-term outcomes. The available data do not show any definitive nutritional advantages for one specific type of gastrointestinal reconstruction technique after pancreatoduodenectomy over the others. Postoperative early resumption of oral intake is safe and should be encouraged within enhanced recovery protocols, but in the case of severe postoperative complications or poor tolerance of oral food after the operation, supplementary artificial nutrition should be started at once. At present, there is not enough evidence to show the benefit of avoiding oral intake in clinically stable patients who are complicated by a clinically irrelevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (a so-called biochemical leak), while special caution should be given to feeding patients with clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula orally. When an artificial nutritional support is needed, enteral nutrition is preferred whenever possible over parenteral nutrition. After the operation, regardless of the type of pancreatic resection or technique of reconstruction, patients should be monitored carefully to assess for the presence of endocrine and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Although fecal elastase-1 is the most readily available clinical test for detection of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, its sensitivity and specificity are low. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy should be initiated routinely after pancreatoduodenectomy and in patients with locally advanced disease and continued for at least 6 months after surgery, because untreated pancreatic exocrine insufficiency may result in severe nutritional derangement.

CONCLUSION

The importance of this position paper is the consensus reached on the topic. Concentrating on nutritional support and therapy is of utmost value in pancreatic surgery for both short- and long-term outcomes.

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 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.