介入方法在胃镜下鼻空肠营养管困难置管中的应用

目的:评价对胃镜直视下鼻空肠营养管困难置管的病人,应用介入方法辅助置管有效性和安全性。方法:对44例常规胃镜下鼻空肠营养管置管失败的病人,通过X线引导,在胃镜直视下用黄斑马导丝辅助置入鼻空肠营养管。结果:介入方法辅助胃镜下鼻空肠营养管困难置管成功率为95.5%,操作时间12～28 min,病人耐受较好,没有发生鼻咽部损伤、腹痛、穿孔、消化道出血等并发症,留置鼻空肠营养管2周内未发生堵管。结论:介入方法辅助胃镜下鼻空肠营养管困难置管的方法有效、安全、可靠。     

床旁空肠营养管徒手置入技术在危重症病人营养治疗中的应用研究

目的:探讨床旁空肠营养管徒手置入技术在危重症病人肠内营养(EN)治疗中的安全性、有效性和实用性. 方法:鼻空肠管组病人采用美国CORPAK公司CORFLO导管置入行鼻空肠营养29例.鼻胃管组采用普通胃管置入行EN支持30例.观察鼻空肠管组置管成功率,置管时间和不良反应.对比观察两组病人血清清蛋白(ALB)、前清蛋白(PA)、血红蛋白(Hb)、APACHEⅡ评分、入住ICU时间、置管费用和ICU总费用等指标的变化,以及反流、腹胀、腹泻、应激性溃疡和吸入性肺炎等并发症的发生率. 结果:床旁经鼻空肠营养管徒手置入成功率为93.1％,置管时间为(19.3-6.8) min,无不良反应.鼻空肠管组病人营养指标和APACHEⅡ评分改善明显,且入住ICU时间、ICU总费用和并发症的发生率均低于对照组. 结论:床旁空肠营养管徒手置入技术在危重症病人EN支持治疗中,具有操作简单、安全、置管成功率高、并发症低、病人营养状况改善明显的优点.     

床旁超声引导下鼻空肠管置入术在ICU中的应用

目的 探讨床旁超声引导下鼻空肠管置入术在ICU中的应用效果.方法 选取2019年6月至2021年1月拟于萍乡市第二人民医院ICU行肠内营养支持的86例重症患者,随机分为对照组与试验组,各43例.对照组采取常规鼻空肠管置入术,试验组在床旁超声引导下行鼻空肠管置入术,比较两组的置入成功率及置管相关并发症发生率.结果 试验组...     

X线导向下置入鼻空肠管早期肠内营养在重症急性胰腺炎病人的应用

目的:评价X线导向下置入鼻空肠管早期肠内营养(EEN)对重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)病人的临床效果和价值。方法:27例SAP病人入院3~5 d后,通过X线导向,经鼻置入空肠管行EEN支持,持续使用2周,并与同期完全胃肠外营养(TPN)组29例病人进行对照。结果:两组病人营养支持后,血淀粉酶较营养支持前明显下降;EEN组较TPN组下降更加明显(P0.01)。两组病人前清蛋白较营养支持前上升,EEN组较TPN组明显上升(P0.05)。EEN组病人可明显缩短住院时间和降低住院费用。两组病人治愈率和病死率无统计学差异。结论:X线导向下置入鼻空肠管行EEN操作简便、成功率高,对SAP病人疗效好,并节省医疗费用。     

重症急性胰腺炎的早期肠内营养支持

目的:通过对15例重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)病人进行早期肠内营养支持,探讨SAP时早期肠内营养的可行性、安全性及有效性.方法:对我院普通外科2002年4月至2003年6月间15例SAP病人在入院3～5天时放置空肠螺旋管,在到达空肠后,进行肠内营养支持.观察病人的一般情况、营养状况、免疫功能及并发症的发生率等.结果:11例病人在置管2～3天后到达空肠,3例置管第4天时在X线透视辅助下置入空肠,1例在置管第4天时在内镜辅助下进入空肠.所有病人对早期肠内营养耐受良好,无胰腺炎复发,而且肠内营养开始后1～2周营养状况及免疫功能与营养支持前比较明显好转,无胰腺坏死组织继发感染的发生.结论:对SAP进行早期肠内营养支持是可行、安全和有效的,能改善SAP病人的营养状况及免疫功能.     

床旁超声两步法判断胃管位置在ICU中的应用

目的:探讨使用床旁超声两步法判断鼻胃管位置在ICU病人中的应用价值.方法:收集2019年12月至2020年12月收住黄河三门峡医院ICU留置鼻胃管的病人64例,留置胃管后由床旁超声医师使用两步法,即通过床旁超声判断鼻胃管置入食管内、鼻胃管置入胃内、最后确定胃管位置,再由一名医师使用常规听诊法、气泡法判断胃管位置.判断完...     

胃肠超声造影技术联合气体灌注定位鼻肠管的方法学研究

目的:探讨利用胃肠超声造影技术联合气体灌注对危重症病人鼻肠管进行定位的方法。方法:随机选择符合鼻肠管留置指征的危重症病人60例,采用床旁盲插法,置管过程中均常规采用传统气体灌注听诊法对鼻肠管进行初步定位,并记录结果。置管完成后,先通过超声扫查鼻肠管走行利用气体灌注法辅助定位,直至可疑头端位置,采用气体冲击灌注,若该处肠腔内出现瞬间气体强回声充盈,再将胃窗声学造影剂注入鼻肠管。若肠腔内出现造影剂充盈并清晰显示鼻肠管头端可予以明确。以胸腹部X线检查为判断鼻肠管定位的金标准,幽门后置管为置管成功的标准,将胃肠超声造影技术联合气体灌注法与传统气体灌注听诊法进行比较。比较两种方法进行鼻肠管定位的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值和准确度。结果:在60例行胃肠超声造影技术联合气体灌注法定位鼻肠管的病人中,定位成功58例(96.7%),其中56例位于幽门后,2例位于胃内,定位失败2例(3.3%),敏感性为96.6%,特异性为100%,阳性预测值为100%,阴性预测值为50%,准确度为96.7%。传统气体灌注听诊法的敏感性为74.1%,特异性为50%,阳性预测值为97.7%,阴性预测值为6.3%,准确度为73.3%。经统计学分析,除阳性预测值外,其余均高于传统气体灌注听诊法(P0.05)。结论:胃肠超声造影技术联合气体灌注法具有较高的敏感性、特异性、阴性预测值和准确度,可成为一种准确、实时、便捷、安全的鼻肠管定位方法。     

超声胃动力测定指导鼻空肠营养管置管的临床价值

目的:利用床旁B超改良胃窦单切面法测定胃动力指标,分析各指标与鼻肠螺旋管盲插成功之间的相关性,评价其临床预测价值. 方法:选择我院ICU收治的拟行幽门后喂养的危重症病人22例.先用改良B超胃窦单切面法分别测量病人的胃窦收缩频率(ACF)、胃窦收缩幅度(ACA)及胃窦运动指数(MI),随后经鼻盲插复尔凯(CH10-145)鼻空肠螺旋营养管.24h后行床旁X片检测确定营养管的尖端位置,以尖端达到幽门下小肠为置管成功.分析比较置管成功组与失败组之间的ACA,ACF及MI差异. 结果:①24h内导管尖端通过幽门(成功组)14例(63.60％),未通过(失败组)8例(36.40％).②成功组[ACA 0.49±0.16,ACF(3.70±2.00)次/2min]明显高于失败组[ACA 0.31±0.15,ACF(2.50 ±2.10)次/2 min],差异有显著性统计学意义(P＜0.05).③两组间MI无明显统计学差异.④ACA和ACF的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.83和0.71(P ＜0.05),MI的ROC曲线下面积为0.78(P ＞0.05). 结论:床旁超声测量ACA和ACF均可作为盲插鼻空肠营养管成功的预测指标,尤其是ACA的意义更大.     

实时超声辅助联合间断注水注气法在危重病人鼻空肠管留置中的应用

目的:评价床旁实时超声辅助联合间断注水注气法在危重病人鼻空肠管留置中的临床效果。方法:选择2017年7月1日至2019年4月30日西安交通大学第一附属医院外科ICU需要进行肠内营养管留置的危重病人进行回顾性分析,根据留置方式分为试验组及对照组,试验组采用实时超声辅助联合间断注水注气留置法,对照组采用徒手盲插留置法。比较两组操作时间、成功率及并发症情况。结果:共计50例病人纳入研究,其中试验组25例,对照组25例。试验组在操作时间上差异无统计学意义[(23.82±8.91) vs (22.35±7.62) min,P=0.538);试验组一次置管成功率显著优于对照组(92%vs 64%, P=0.037);两组病人操作过程中均未出现明显并发症。结论:床旁实时超声辅助联合间断注水注气法在危重病人鼻空肠管留置应用中具有安全可行的特点,值得临床广泛开展。     

盲插法鼻空肠管置入术在ICU病人中的应用

近年来,随着临床营养支持的发展与基础研究的深入,人们对肠管功能和肠内营养(EN)的重要性有了新的认识[1]。EN实施必须利用喂养管放置技术,鼻空肠管置入行EN治疗是一种临床常用的喂养管放置技术之一。既往非手术病人鼻空肠管放置通常在X线、胃镜或B超引导下实施[2-5],但这种方法显然不适宜ICU的病人。我们采用盲插法置入鼻空肠管,取得了较高的成功率和临床效果,现报道如下。     

X线下放置鼻空肠营养管在危重症早期肠内营养中的应用

目的:探讨X线下放置鼻空肠营养管,在危重症病人早期肠内营养中的临床应用价值.方法:在X线监视下,将带有金属导丝的营养管自鼻腔经胃、十二指肠,置入空肠,拔出导丝,注入造影剂,确认营养管前端已进入Treitz韧带后30 cm以远.结果:X线下可将营养管放置至Treitz韧带30 cm以远的空肠部位,置管成功率为100%,置管时间为10～40(平均20)min.置管后营养管在位良好,喂养过程顺利.结论:X线下放置鼻空肠营养管,是一种操作简便快捷、安全可靠的置管技术,为危重症病人早期肠内营养支持提供了一条更有效的营养途径.     

Feasibility of self-propelling nasojejunal feeding tube in patients with acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS: To assess the success rate of a self-propelling nasojejunal feeding tube in patients with acute pancreatitis. METHODS: All patients admitted for acute pancreatitis were included. A self-propelling nasojejunal feeding tube was introduced into the stomach, and gastrointestinal motility was stimulated using metoclopramide. If the tube failed to advance to the ligament of Treitz, a nasojejunal tube was placed endoscopically. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients, 94 with necrotizing pancreatitis (Balthazar D/E) and 14 with nonnecrotizing pancreatitis (Balthazar B/C), were referred for artificial nutrition. In 11 cases, ileus persisted and parenteral nutrition was initiated. Among the remaining 97 patients, 5 refused tube placement. The self-propelling feeding tube was inserted in 92 patients with successful migration to the ligament of Treitz in 61% (n = 56) and failure in 39% (n = 36). Of the 36 patients with an initial failed placement, endoscopic placement of a nasojejunal tube was successful 80% of the time (29 patients). The success rate of a nasojejunal self-propelling feeding tube placement correlated directly with the severity of the acute pancreatitis (92% in B/C vs 61% in D vs 48% in E; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a self-propelling nasojejunal tube is a simple technique that can be successfully performed in the majority of patients with acute pancreatitis. The utility of this procedure in the most severe cases of acute pancreatitis continues to pose a challenge.     

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.     

Bedside placement of nasojejunal tubes: a randomised-controlled trial of spiral- vs straight-ended tubes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The success rate of unguided nasojejunal feeding tube insertion is low, thus often requiring endoscopic or radiological assistance. The spiral end of the Bengmark nasojejunal tube is supposed to aid post-pyloric placement, but no comparative trial has been performed. METHODS: Patients requiring nasojejunal feeding were randomised to have either Medicina (straight) or Bengmark (spiral) nasojejunal tube placed after stratification into those with normal gastric emptying or clinical evidence of delayed gastric emptying. Nasojejunal tubes were placed at the bedside in a standard fashion without radiological guidance by the same person for pre- and/or post-operative feeding. Bolus intravenous metaclopromide (10mg) was given prior to insertion in the abnormal gastric emptying group. Abdominal radiographs were obtained at 4 and 24h, and the primary end-point was jejunal placement at 24h. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were randomised of which 17 (11 straight, 6 spiral) could not tolerate the nasojejunal tube. Of the 30 remaining patients, 16 had normal gastric emptying. In patients with normal gastric emptying, successful placement at 24h was achieved in 78% (spiral tube), vs 14% (straight tube) (P=0.041). In the abnormal gastric emptying group, success rates were 57% and 0%, respectively (P=0.07). CONCLUSION: Spiral nasojejunal tubes are preferable to straight tubes for bedside unguided post-pyloric feeding in patients with normal gastric emptying.     

A randomized controlled trial comparing three different techniques of nasojejunal feeding tube placement in critically ill children

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to compare 3 different techniques used to place nasojejunal (NJ) feeding tubes in the critically ill or injured pediatric patients. This was a randomized, prospective trial in a university-affiliated 12-bed pediatric intensive care unit. Patients were critically ill children requiring placement of an NJ feeding tube. Patient age, weight, medications, use of mechanical ventilation, and patient tolerance were recorded. An abdominal radiograph obtained immediately after the placement determined correct placement. The final placement was recorded, as was the number of placement attempts. METHODS: Patients were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: standard technique, standard technique facilitated with gastric insufflation, and standard technique facilitated with the use of preinsertion erythromycin. To ensure equal distribution, all patients were stratified by weight (<10 kg vs > or =10 kg) before randomization. All NJ tubes were placed by one of the investigators. If unsuccessful, a second attempt by the same investigator was allowed. Successful placement of the NJ tube was defined by confirmation of the tip of the tube in the first part of the duodenum or beyond by a pediatric radiologist blinded to the treatment groups. RESULTS: Seventy-five pediatric patients were enrolled in the study; 94.6% (71/75) of tubes were passed successfully into the small bowel on the first or second attempt. Evaluation of the data revealed no significant association with a specific technique and successful placement (p = .1999). CONCLUSIONS: When placed by a core group of experienced operators, the majority of NJ feeding tubes can be placed in critically ill or injured children on the first or second attempt, regardless of the technique used.     

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.     

Nasojejunal feeding in hyperemesis gravidarum--a preliminary study

Hyperemesis gravidarum is a severe form of nausea and vomiting during the first trimester of pregnancy. Our objective was to assess the feasibility of nasojejunal feeding in our patients. Eleven pregnant women aged 23-46 years with hyperemesis gravidarum, persisting in spite of an in-hospital treatment of 2-15 days by intravenous fluids and antiemetic drugs and accompanied by weight loss, consented to have a nasojejunal feeding tube inserted endoscopically. Mean in-hospital weight loss prior to tube insertion was 2.2+/-1.1 kg (range 0.9-5.1 kg). A clear reduction in the extent of vomiting was already apparent within the first 48 h after tube insertion, but vomiting ceased completely after a mean of 5+/-4 days (range 1-13 days). Weight gain was recorded in six patients who stayed on tube feeding for more than 4 days. Patients were encouraged to start drinking and eating along tube feeding after 3-4 days. Ceasing vomiting and a concomitant sufficient oral intake of at least 1000 kcal/day resulted in the decision to remove the tube after 4-21 days. In three cases, however, the tube was expelled by recurrent vomiting after 1-4 days, or was blocked as in one case. The tube was not reintroduced and patients did not resume vomiting. There were no complications associated with this feeding approach in this population. Only one patient was readmitted. None of the rest resumed vomiting after tube withdrawal.The above suggests that nasojejunal enteral feeding can be an effective option in hyperemesis gravidarum persisting despite intravenous fluids and antiemetic drugs.     

幽门后营养支持治疗对呼吸重症病人医院获得性肺炎和病死率的影响

目的 :探讨幽门后肠内营养支持治疗对呼吸病人医院获得性肺炎和病死率的影响。方法 :回顾性调查呼吸重症病房(RICU)41例幽门后肠内营养支持的病人(幽门后喂养组,n=41),另配对调查同期呼吸重症病房41例行常规鼻胃管喂养病人(鼻胃管喂养组,n=41)。主要观察并比较两组病人呼吸机相关肺炎(VAP)发生率、医院获得性肺炎(HAP,不含VAP)发生率和RICU住院病死率。同时观察并比较两组呕吐、显性误吸、胃潴留、腹泻和终止肠内营养次数等重要临床表现。结果 :幽门后喂养组HAP发生率为2.4%,显著低于鼻胃管喂养组22.0%,差异有显著性统计学意义(P0.05)。幽门后喂养组VAP发生率为16.7%,鼻胃管喂养组为8.7%,两组相比差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。幽门后喂养组RICU住院病死率为36.6%,与鼻胃管喂养组(41.5%)相比,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组在呕吐、显性误吸、胃潴留、腹泻和终止肠内营养次数等重要临床观察指标方面差异均无显著性统计学意义。结论 :与经鼻胃管喂养相比,幽门后喂养降低呼吸重症病人HAP的发生率,但对VAP发生率和RICU住院病死率均无显著影响。