Clinical application of clip-assisted endoscopic method for nasoenteric feeding in patients with gastroparesis and gastroesophageal wounds

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.

The History of Nonsurgical Enteral Tube Feeding Access

Specialized nutrition support, particularly enteral feeding, has been used for centuries. Technologic advancements have affected the provision of enteral feeding. Feeding solutions and devices, as well as the techniques to place the feeding devices, have evolved. This article reviews the history of bedside placement methods for short-term enteral access devices.

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.

Endoclips for fixation of nasoenteral feeding tubes: a review

BACKGROUND

Maintaining the position of an endoscopically placed nasoenteral feeding tube beyond the pylorus is often problematic because of retrograde migration. Fixation of a feeding tube to the small intestinal wall with an endoclip may prevent this. This article reviews available literature on the feasibility, efficacy and safety of endoclips for fixation of nasoenteral feeding tubes.

METHODS

A systematic search of the English literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases to identify articles assessing the use of endoclips for fixation of feeding tubes, as well as articles assessing duration of attachment of endoclips.

RESULTS

Five cohort series were identified that evaluated the applicability of endoclips for fixation of feeding tubes to the small intestinal wall. In all patients, except one, a nasoenteral feeding tube could be successfully fixated to the small intestinal wall. During follow-up, no spontaneous migrations of feeding tubes were observed. No complications related to placement or removal of endoclips were observed. Three comparative studies evaluated duration of attachment of different types of endoclips to the gastrointestinal wall. Duration of attachment ranged from less than 1 week to more than 18 weeks, depending on the type of endoclip.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on available literature the use of endoclips for fixation of nasoenteral feeding tubes is feasible, effective and safe. Data from randomized controlled trials are needed.

Enteral feeding in the critically ill: the role of the gastroenterologist

Expertise in enteral nutrition (EN) is an important aspect of the skill set of the clinical gastroenterologist. Delivery of adequate EN in critically ill patients is an active therapy that attenuates the metabolic response to stress and favorably modulates the immune system. EN is less expensive than parenteral nutrition and is favored in most cases because of improvement in patient outcomes, including infections and length of stay. Newer endoscopic techniques for placing nasoenteric feeding tubes have been developed, which improve placement success and efficiency. It appears that there is an ideal window period of 24-48 h when enteral feeding should be started in critically ill patients. Most patients can be fed into the stomach, but certain groups may benefit from small bowel feeding. Protocols on how to start and monitor enteral feeding have been developed. Immune-modulating feeding formulations also appear to be beneficial in specific patient populations. The gastroenterologist is a crucial member of the multidisciplinary team for nutritional support in the intensive care unit patient, with his knowledge of gastrointestinal pathophysiology, nutrition, and endoscopic feeding-tube placement.

Enteral nutrition access devices

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but, in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such situations, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the ASGE Governing Board. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 for articles related to endoscopy in patients requiring enteral feeding access by using the keywords "endoscopy," "percutaneous," "gastrostomy," "jejunostomy," "nasogastric," "nasoenteric," "nasojejunal," "transnasal," "feeding tube," "enteric," and "button." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.