A randomized trial of endoscopic and fluoroscopic placement of postpyloric feeding tubes in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND: Early postpyloric feeding is considered the accepted method of nutrition support in critically ill patients. Endoscopic and fluoroscopic techniques are associated with the highest percentage of successful placement. The purpose of this study was to compare endoscopic vs fluoroscopic placement of postpyloric feeding tubes in critically ill patients. METHODS: This is a randomized prospective clinical trial. Forty-three patients were randomized to receive feeding tubes by endoscopic or fluoroscopic technique. All procedures were performed at the bedside in the critical care unit. A soft small-bore nonweighted feeding tube was used in all cases. Successful placement was confirmed by either an abdominal x-ray for endoscopic technique or a fluoroscopic radiograph for fluoroscopic technique. RESULTS: Postpyloric feeding tubes were successfully placed in 41 of 43 patients (95%). The success rate using endoscopic technique was 96% (25 of 26), whereas the rate using fluoroscopy was 94% (16 of 17). The average time of successful placement was 15.2 +/- 2.9 (mean +/- SEM) minutes for endoscopic placement and 16.2 +/- 3.2 minutes for fluoroscopic placement, which was not statistically significant (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic and fluoroscopic placement of postpyloric feeding tubes can safely and accurately be performed at the bedside in critically ill patients. Our results showed no significant difference in the success rate or time of placement between endoscopic vs fluoroscopic placement of postpyloric feeding tubes.     

Bedside enteral feeding tube placement into duodenum and jejunum

A bedside method for placement of nasoenteric feeding tubes is described utilizing gravity and corkscrewing of the feeding tube to pass the pylorus and then air injection to verify position of the tube from the location and character of transmitted sounds to the stethoscope. Twenty-eight of 31 consecutive patients requiring enteral feeding had tubes successfully placed past the pylorus using this method, 25 on the first attempt and three on the second. This method is an effective and inexpensive alternative to endoscopic or fluoroscopic feeding tube placement.     

Endoscopic placement of fine bore nasogastric and nasoenteric feeding tubes

In a small proportion of patients requiring enteral nutrition it may not be possible to site nasogastric or nasoenteric feeding tubes using standard intubation techniques. We describe an endoscopic method of tube placement applicable not only for positioning nasogastric feeding tubes in patients with coexisting oesophageal pathology, but also for placement of nasoenteric feeding tubes when disordered gastric emptying is present.     

Placement of a Magnetic Small Bowel Feeding Tube at the Bedside

Background: Current methods of achieving postpyloric enteral access for feeding are fraught with difficulties, which can markedly delay enteral feeding and cause complications. Bedside tube placement has a low success rate, often requires several radiographs to confirm position, and delays feeding by many hours. Although postpyloric enteral tubes can reliably be placed in interventional radiology (IR), this involves greater resource utilization, delays, cost, and inconvenience. We assessed the utility of bedside enteral tube placement using a magnetic feeding tube (Syncro‐BlueTube; Syncro Medical Innovations, Macon, GA, USA) as a means to facilitate initial tube placement. Methods: We recorded the time to insertion, location of tube, success rate, and need for radiographs in a series of patients given magnetic feeding tubes (n = 46) inserted by our hospitalist service over an 8‐month interval. Results: Of the 46 attempted magnetic tube placements, 76% were successfully placed in the postpyloric position, 13% were in the stomach, and 11% could not be placed. In 83% of the magnetic tubes, only 1 radiograph was needed for confirmation. The median time to placement was 12 minutes (range, 4–120 minutes). Conclusion: The use of a magnetic feeding tube can increase the success rate of bedside postpyloric placement, decrease the time to successful placement, and decrease the need for supplemental radiographs and IR.     

Use of small-bore feeding tubes: successes and failures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Early enteral nutrition is the preferred option for feeding patients who cannot meet their nutrient requirements orally. This article reviews complications associated with small-bore feeding tube insertion and potential methods to promote safe gastric or postpyloric placement. We review the available bedside methods to check the position of the feeding tube and identify inadvertent misplacements. RECENT FINDINGS: Airway misplacement rates of small feeding tubes are considerable. Bedside methods (auscultation, pH, aspirate appearance, air bubbling, external length of the tube, etc.) to confirm the position of a newly inserted small-bore feeding tube have limited scientific basis. Radiographic confirmation therefore continues to be the most accurate method to ascertain tube position. Fluoroscopic and endoscopic methods are reliable but costly and are not available in many hospitals. Rigid protocols to place feeding tubes along with new emerging technology such as CO2 colorimetric paper and tubes coupled with signaling devices are promising candidates to substitute for the blind placement method. SUMMARY: The risk of misplacement with blind bedside methods for small-bore feeding tube insertion requires a change in hospital protocols.     

Acute complications associated with bedside placement of feeding tubes.

Several types of feeding tubes can be placed at a patient's bedside; examples include nasogastric, nasointestinal, gastrostomy, and jejunostomy tubes. Nasoenteral tubes can be placed blindly at bedside or with the assistance of placement devices. Nasoenteric tubes can also be placed via fluoroscopy and endoscopy. Gastrostomy and jejunostomy tubes can be placed using endoscopic techniques. This paper will describe the indications and contraindications for different types of tubes that can be placed at the bedside and complications associated with tube placement. Complications associated with nasoenteral tubes include inadvertent malpositioning of the tube, epistaxis, sinusitis, inadvertent tube removal, tube clogging, tube-feeding-associated diarrhea, and aspiration pneumonia. Complications from percutaneous gastrostomy and jejunostomy tube placements include procedure-related mishaps, site infection, leakage, buried bumper syndrome, tube malfunction, and inadvertent removal. These complications will be reviewed, along with a discussion of incidence, cause, treatment, and prevention approaches.     

Enteral feeding techniques

Major technical advances in enteral nutrition include the use of erythromycin or magnetic guidance for the placement of the feeding tube into the duodenum, the development of new enteral tubes, and bedside methods to control the tube position. Percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy is becoming a safe procedure with a high success rate. Specialized diets offer little or no clinical advantages when compared with standard polymeric diets.     

Bedside placement of small bowel feeding tubes in hospitalized patients: a new role for the dietitian

OBJECTIVE: The benefits of enteral nutrition when compared with parenteral nutrition are well established. However, provision of enteral nutrition may not occur for several reasons, including lack of optimal feeding access. Gastric feeding is easier to initiate, but many hospitalized patients are intolerant to gastric feeding, although they can tolerate small bowel feeding. Many institutions rely on costly methods for placing small bowel feeding tubes. Our goal was to evaluate the effectiveness of a hospital-developed protocol for bedside-blind placement of postpyloric feeding tubes. METHODS: The Surgical Nutrition Service established a protocol for bedside placement of small bowel feeding tubes. The protocol uses a 10- or 12-French, 110-cm stylet containing the feeding tube; 10 mg of intravenous metoclopramide; gradual tube advancement followed by air injection and auscultation; and an abdominal radiograph for tube position confirmation. In a prospective manner, consults received by the surgical nutrition dietitian for feeding tube placements were followed consecutively for a 10-mo period. The registered dietitian recorded the number of radiograph examinations, the final tube position, and the time it took to achieve tube placement. RESULTS: Because all consults were included, feeding tube placements occurred in surgical and medical patients in the intensive care unit and on the ward. Of the 135 tube placements performed, 129 (95%) were successfully placed postpylorically, with 84% (114 of 135) placed at or beyond D3. Average time for tube placement was 28 min (10 to 90 min). One radiograph was required for 92% of the placements; eight of 135 (6%) required two radiographs. No acute complications were associated with the tube placements. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients can receive timely enteral feeding with a cost-effective feeding tube placement protocol. The protocol is easy to implement and can be taught to appropriate medical team members through proper training and certification.     

Verification of an electromagnetic placement device compared with abdominal radiograph to predict accuracy of feeding tube placement

Background: Use of an electromagnetic placement device (EMPD) facilitates placement of feeding tubes at the bedside. Standard practice for verification of feeding tube placement is via radiographic confirmation. The purpose of this research study was to assess the accuracy of placement of small‐bore feeding tubes (SBFTs) as determined by EMPD interpretation compared with that of abdominal radiograph verification by a radiologist. Methods: This multicenter prospective study enrolled patients requiring bedside feeding tube placement. SBFTs were placed by an experienced investigator using the EMPD. Two abdominal radiographs were then obtained: one after initial SBFT placement and an additional radiograph after injection of contrast. Documentation of location based on clinician interpretation using the EMPD was then compared with radiologist interpretation. Results: The final sample size was 194 patients, including 18 pediatric patients. Patient age ranged from 12 days to 102 years. Median time for tube placement was 12 minutes. Of the 194 patients, only 1 patient had data showing discrepancies between the original EMPD verification and the final abdominal radiograph interpretation, providing a 99.5% agreement. No patient experienced complications during SBFT placement, and 15 patients had inadvertent airway placement that was avoided with the use of the EMPD. Conclusions: There was a high percentage of agreement between EMPD and radiologic interpretation after contrast injection. The EMPD aided in avoiding inadvertent airway placement, with no patient complications. This device can be used safely at the bedside to facilitate placement of feeding tubes, leading to the delivery of early enteral nutrition.     

Nutritional support of the dysphagic patient: methods, risks, and complications of therapy

The indications, methods, and complications of nutritional support of 90 patients admitted with a primary complaint of dysphagia were reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups based on etiology of dysphagia (central neurologic vs local mechanical dysfunction). All patients on admission exhibited marked malnutrition with an average weight loss of 12 +/- 9.8% body weight, serum transferrin 165 +/- 60.1 mg/dl, and albumin 3.2 +/- 0.85 mg/dl. All patients were placed on either enteral (63%) or parenteral (37%) nutrition. Twenty-seven percent of all patients suffered a complication of nutritional therapy. Patients with nasoenteric tubes had a 10% complication incidence (aspiration or endotracheal placement of tube) resulting in a 30% mortality rate; significantly higher (p less than 0.05) than seen with other modalities. Any form of upper enteric feeding (nasoenteric or gastrostomy) was associated with significantly increased (p less than 0.01) risk of aspiration pneumonia. It is concluded that patients admitted to hospital with dysphagia as the major complaint suffer from severe malnutrition, and that upper gastrointestinal intubation should not be employed for feeding until the dysphagia has resolved.     

Monitoring feeding tube placement.

The purpose of this literature review is to describe currently available bedside methods to determine feeding tube placement. Described first are methods used at the time of blind insertion to distinguish between gastric and respiratory placement and gastric and small-bowel placement. Discussed next are methods used after feedings are initiated to determine if the tube has remained in the desired position in the gastrointestinal tract. Some of the methods are research-based, whereas others are opinion-based. The level of accuracy of the methods discussed in the review varies widely. No sure non-radiographic method exists to differentiate between respiratory, esophageal, gastric, and small bowel placement of blindly inserted feeding tubes in the fed or unfed state. However, a combination of some of the simpler and more accurate methods may be used to guide feeding tube placement during insertion and help identify the point at which an abdominal radiograph is most likely to confirm the desired location. In addition, methods described in this review can help determine when a radiograph is needed to confirm that a feeding tube has remained in the correct position after the initiation of feedings. Minimizing the number of radiographs taken to assure correct tube placement is important, especially in young children and in the critical care setting where the need for radiographs for other reasons is common.     

Transnasal endoscopic placement of nasoenteric feeding tubes: outcomes and limitations in non-critically ill patients.

Transnasal endoscopic placement of nasoenteric tubes (NETs) has been demonstrated to be useful in the critical care setting, with limited data on its role in non-critically ill patients. The authors collected data on consecutive patients from a non-critical care setting undergoing transnasal endoscopic NET placement. All NETs were endoscopically placed using a standard over-the-guidewire technique, and positions were confirmed with fluoroscopy. Patients were monitored until the removal of NETs or death. Twenty-two patients (median age = 62.5 years, 36.4% female) were referred for postpyloric feeding, with main indications of persistent gastrocutaneous fistula (n = 6), gastroparesis or gastric outlet obstruction (n = 5), duodenal stenosis (n = 6), acute pancreatitis (n = 4), and gastroesophageal reflux after surgery (n = 1). Postpyloric placement of NET was achieved in 19 of 22 (86.3%) patients, with 36.8% tube positions in the jejunum, 47.4% in the distal duodenum, and 15.8% in the second part of the duodenum. NET placement was least successful in cases with duodenal stenosis. NETs remained in situ for a median of 24 days (range, 2-94), with tube dislodgement (n = 3) and clogging (n = 5) as the main complications. NET feeding resulted in complete healing of gastrocutaneous fistulae in 5 of 6 patients and provision of total enteral nutrition in 3 of 4 cases of acute pancreatitis and 9 of 11 cases of gastroparesis or proximal duodenal obstruction. Transnasal endoscopy has a role in the placement of NET in non-critically ill patients requiring postpyloric feeding. However, there are some limitations, particularly in cases with altered duodenal anatomy.     

Use of a colorimetric carbon dioxide sensor for nasoenteric feeding tube placement in critical care patients compared with clinical methods and radiography.

BACKGROUND: Misplacement of nasoenteric feeding tubes (NFTs) into the airway instead of the esophagus leads to complications. Healthcare providers have relied on clinical methods, devices such as carbon dioxide (CO(2)) sensors, and radiography (the gold standard) to evaluate NFT placements. Most institutions include radiographs in their protocols for NFT insertions, making it expensive and cumbersome. A new commercial CO(2) sensor was developed to assist in these procedures, and the authors evaluated its use. METHODS: Nurses performing NFT placement completed questionnaires following each procedure. The nurses recorded the clinical methods used to determine proper insertion and, based on them, where the NFT was located. Nurses then evaluated NFT insertion with the CO(2) sensor; from the readings, they recorded where the tube was located. Confirmation of tube placement was performed radiographically. RESULTS: The authors evaluated 424 NFT insertions. Of these, 15 (3.5%) were incorrectly placed into the airway, and 409 were correctly placed into the esophagus. The CO(2) sensor correctly assessed NFT placement in 421 (99%) of the 424 cases. The authors found the device to have a sensitivity of 86.7% and a specificity of 99.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The CO(2) sensor is a helpful bedside tool to use in conjunction with clinical methods during NFT insertions. However, there is insufficient evidence to abandon the use of radiographs to confirm tube placement.     

Placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes using external magnetic guidance

BACKGROUND: Enteral feeding is preferred over parenteral methods, and feeding into the duodenum is preferred over gastric feeding in certain groups of critically ill patients. However, with current techniques, feeding tubes often coil in the stomach, exposing patients to the risk of aspiration. This study investigated whether a nasoenteral feeding tube can be guided beyond the pyloric sphincter, using external magnetic guidance. METHODS: This is a case series of 288 critically ill patients who needed placement of an enteral feeding tube, carried out in the intensive care units and wards of a university-affiliated community hospital. A 12-French polyurethane nasoduodenal feeding tube was modified by placing a small magnet in the distal tip. After inserting the tube through the nares into the esophagus, an external magnet was used to draw the tube tip beyond the pyloric sphincter and further into the duodenum or jejunum. Placement was verified by plain abdominal x-ray, and the depth of insertion (stomach, proximal duodenum, distal duodenum, or jejunum) was recorded. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-nine intubations were performed in 288 patients (mean procedure time 15 minutes). In 293 cases (89.1%), the tube was placed beyond the pyloric sphincter. In 139 insertions (42.2%), the tube tip was in the distal portion of the duodenum or the jejunum. There were no significant complications. CONCLUSIONS: This case series demonstrates that external magnetic guidance achieves transpyloric placement of an enteral feeding tube in 89.1% of cases. This reliable bedside technique is superior to other methods described in the literature.     

Nasoenteric feeding tubes in critically ill patients (fluoroscopy versus blind)

Numerous complications have been encountered with small-bore nasoenteric feeding tubes, some potentially life threatening. Patients particularly at risk are those with anatomic abnormalities, debilitation, or neurologic impairment. Fluoroscopy has been reported to be a safe, efficacious modality for the placement of these tubes. Thirty critically ill patients were studied to assess caloric delivery, costs, and complications associated with both fluoroscopically and blindly placed feeding tubes. All patients had either a tracheostomy or an endotracheal tube. They were randomized to group A (fluoroscopy) or group B (blind). Caloric delivery was greater in group A patients on days 1 through 5, with statistically significant differences on days 1 through 4. The mean daily calories per patient over the study period was 1135 +/- 96 and 662 +/- 110 (mean +/- SEM) in groups A and B, respectively (P < 0.01). Costs were similar in both groups. The most frequent problems encountered were difficult insertion, tubes requiring replacement, and failure to intubate the duodenum. We conclude that critically ill patients intubated either endotracheally or with tracheostomy should have nasoenteric feeding tubes placed with the guidance of fluoroscopy.     

床旁放置经鼻小肠管的新方法

胃排空障碍是影响危重患者肠内营养实施的重要问题,经小肠喂养是解决方法之一。放置小肠营养管的非手术方法主要包括内镜引导和X线辅助,但这两种方法均需要一定的设备和场所,不利于对危重患者进行床旁实施。近年来出现了多种辅助盲探放置小肠管的新方法,本文对这些方法进行综述。     

超声辅助四步法鼻空肠管置入在ICU中的应用

目的:探讨超声辅助四步法鼻空肠管置入在ICU重症病人中的应用价值。方法:33例拟行肠内营养支持的ICU重症病人采用超声引导四步法进行鼻空肠管置入,即通过超声判断鼻空肠管置入食道内、鼻空肠管置入胃内、鼻空肠管置入幽门后、最后确认鼻空肠管位置。结果:成功置入28例,失败3例,失败原因为通过幽门之假象及病人胃蠕动消失,鼻空肠管末端贴于胃大弯处,无法弯曲进入胃窦、幽门。结论:超声辅助四步法床旁鼻空肠管置入技术是一种新的鼻空肠管置入技术,操作简单,有效、无创,可重复性且成功率较高,可预防或减少并发症的发生。     

胃镜辅助下放置空肠营养管的方法

目的:探讨内镜下放置空肠营养管的方法.方法:给148例病人放置空肠营养管,116例病人在胃镜下用异物钳钳夹胃腔内空肠营养管,推送胃镜将其送至Treitz韧带以下.32例经鼻超细胃镜放置导丝后,再经导丝放入空肠营养管.结果:两种空肠营养管放置成功率均为100%,其中鼻肠管126例,三腔鼻肠管22例.两组均无严重并发症,1例病人置管后出现血淀粉酶升高.结论:两种空肠营养管放置的方法成功率均高,不良反应小,操作简单安全.     

Establishing Early Enteral Nutrition With the Use of Self‐Advancing Postpyloric Feeding Tube in Critically Ill Children

Introduction: Early nutrition support is an integral part of the care of critically ill children. Early enteral nutrition (EN) improves nitrogen balance and prevents bacterial translocation and gut mucosal atrophy. Adequate EN is often not achieved as gastric feeds are not tolerated and placing postpyloric feeding tubes can be difficult. Spontaneous transpyloric passage of standard feeding tubes without endoscopic intervention or use of anesthesia can range from 30%?80%. The authors report on their experience with a 14Fr polyurethane self‐advancing jejunal feeding tube in a pediatric population. These tubes have been used in the adult population with success, but to the authors’ knowledge, there have been no reports of its use in the pediatric age group. Case Series: The authors present 7 critically ill patients 8–19 years old, admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit, in whom prolonged recovery, inability to tolerate gastric feeds, and dependence on ventilator were predicted at the outset. The jejunal feeding tube was successfully placed on first attempt at the bedside in all 7 patients within the first 24 hours without the use of a promotility agent or endoscopic intervention. Nutrition goal achieved within 48 hours of feeding tube placement was reported for each patient. This case series demonstrates that children fed via the small bowel reached their nutrition goal earlier and did not require parenteral nutrition. Conclusion: The self‐advancing jejunal feeding tube can be used effectively to establish early EN in critically ill children.     

Bedside electromagnetic-guided feeding tube placement: an improvement over traditional placement technique?

BACKGROUND: Registered dietitian/registered nurse (RD/RN) teams were created to place small bowel feeding tubes (SBFT) at the bedside in intensive care unit (ICU) patients using an electromagnetic tube placement device (ETPD). The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of placing feeding tubes at the ICU bedside using an ETPD. Secondary outcomes included success rate, cost, and timeliness of feeding initiation. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively on 20 SBFT blind placements in ICU patients (control group). After implementing a protocol for RD/RN teams to place SBFTs with an ETPD, 81 SBFTs were placed (study group). Complications, success rate, number of x-rays after tube placement, x-ray cost, and time from physician order to initiation of feedings were compared between the groups. RESULTS: No adverse events occurred in either group. Successful SBFT placement was 63% (12/19) in the control group and 78% (63/81) in the study group (not significant, NS). The median time between physician order for tube placement and feeding initiation decreased from 22.3 hours (control group) to 7.8 hours (study group, p = .003). The median number of x-rays to confirm correct placement was 1 in the study group compared with 2 in the control group (p = .0001), resulting in a 50% decrease in the mean cost for x-rays. CONCLUSIONS: No adverse events occurred with the implementation of bedside feeding tube placement using an ETPD. In addition, SBFT placement with an ETPD by designated ICU RD/RN teams resulted in lower x-ray costs and more timely initiation of enteral feedings compared with blind placement.