-
Revista Latino-americana de Enfermagem 2021to analyze in the scientific literature the evidence on nasogastric/nasoenteric tube related adverse events in adult patients. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
to analyze in the scientific literature the evidence on nasogastric/nasoenteric tube related adverse events in adult patients.
METHOD
integrative literature review through the search of publications in journals indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, EMBASE and Scopus, and hand searching, was undertaken up to April 2017.
RESULTS
the sample consisted of 69 primary studies, mainly in English and published in the USA and UK. They were divided in two main categories and subcategories: the first category refers to Mechanical Adverse Events (respiratory complications; esophageal or pharyngeal complications; tube obstruction; intestinal perforation; intracranial perforation and unplanned tube removal) and the second alludes to Others (pressure injury related to fixation and misconnections). Death was reported in 16 articles.
CONCLUSION
nasogastric/nasoenteric tube related adverse events are relatively common and the majority involved respiratory harm that resulted in increased hospitalization and/or death. The results may contribute to healthcare professionals, especially nurses, to develop an evidence-based guideline for insertion and correct positioning of bedside enteral tubes in adult patients.
Topics: Adult; Enteral Nutrition; Hospitalization; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal
PubMed: 33439952
DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.3355.3400 -
Critical Care (London, England) Aug 2023Nasogastric feeding tube insertion is a common but invasive procedure most often blindly placed by nurses in acute and chronic care settings. Although usually not... (Review)
Review
Nasogastric feeding tube insertion is a common but invasive procedure most often blindly placed by nurses in acute and chronic care settings. Although usually not harmful, serious and fatal complications with misplacement still occur and variation in practice still exists. These tubes can be used for drainage or administration of fluids, drugs and/or enteral feeding. During blind insertion, it is important to achieve correct tip position of the tube ideally reaching the body of the stomach. If the insertion length is too short, the tip and/or distal side-openings at the end of the tube can be located in the esophagus increasing the risk of aspiration (pneumonia). Conversely, when the insertion length is too long, the tube might kink in the stomach, curl upwards into the esophagus or enter the duodenum. Studies have demonstrated that the most frequently used technique to determine insertion length (the nose-earlobe-xiphoid method) is too short a distance; new safer methods should be used and further more robust evidence is needed. After blind placement, verifying correct gastric tip positioning is of major importance to avoid serious and sometimes lethal complications.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Enteral Nutrition; Drainage; Long-Term Care
PubMed: 37596615
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04611-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021The balance of benefits and harms associated with enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia is not clear. An increasing number of guidelines highlight the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The balance of benefits and harms associated with enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia is not clear. An increasing number of guidelines highlight the lack of evidenced benefit and potential risks of enteral tube feeding. In some areas of the world, the use of enteral tube feeding is decreasing, and in other areas it is increasing.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia who develop problems with eating and swallowing or who have reduced food and fluid intake.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registers on 14 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or controlled non-randomised studies. Our population of interest was adults of any age with a diagnosis of primary degenerative dementia of any cause, with severe cognitive and functional impairment, and poor nutritional intake. Eligible studies evaluated the effectiveness and complications of enteral tube feeding via a nasogastric or gastrostomy tube, or via jejunal post-pyloric feeding, in comparison with standard care or enhanced standard care, such as an intervention to promote oral intake. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors screened citations and two review authors assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies against inclusion criteria. One review author extracted data, which were then checked independently by a second review author. We used the 'Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions' (ROBINS-I) tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Risk of confounding was assessed against a pre-agreed list of key potential confounding variables. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers. Results were not suitable for meta-analysis, so we presented them narratively. We presented results separately for studies of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding, nasogastric tube feeding and studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall certainty of the evidence related to each outcome for each study.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no eligible RCTs. We included fourteen controlled, non-randomised studies. All the included studies compared outcomes between groups of people who had been assigned to enteral tube feeding or oral feeding by prior decision of a healthcare professional. Some studies controlled for a range of confounding factors, but there were high or very high risks of bias due to confounding in all studies, and high or critical risks of selection bias in some studies. Four studies with 36,816 participants assessed the effect of PEG feeding on survival time. None found any evidence of effects on survival time (low-certainty evidence). Three of four studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods in 310 participants (227 enteral tube feeding, 83 no enteral tube feeding) found them to be associated with longer survival time. The fourth study (1386 participants: 135 enteral tube feeding, 1251 no enteral tube feeding) found no evidence of an effect. The certainty of this body of evidence is very low. One study of PEG feeding (4421 participants: 1585 PEG, 2836 no enteral tube feeding) found PEG feeding increased the risk of pressure ulcers (moderate-certainty evidence). Two of three studies reported an increase in the number of pressure ulcers in those receiving mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding (234 participants: 88 enteral tube feeding, 146 no enteral tube feeding). The third study found no effect (very-low certainty evidence). Two studies of nasogastric tube feeding did not report data on survival time or pressure ulcers. None of the included studies assessed quality of life. Only one study, using mixed methods of enteral tube feeding, reported on pain and comfort, finding no difference between groups. In the same study, a higher proportion of carers reported very heavy burden in the enteral tube feeding group compared to no enteral tube feeding. Two studies assessed the effect of nasogastric tube feeding on mortality (236 participants: 144 nasogastric group, 92 no enteral tube feeding). One study of 67 participants (14 nasogastric, 53 no enteral tube feeding) found nasogastric feeding was associated with increased mortality risk. The second study found no difference in mortality between groups. The certainty of this evidence is very low. Results on mortality for those using PEG or mixed methods of enteral tube feeding were mixed and the certainty of evidence was very low. There was some evidence from two studies for enteral tube feeding improving nutritional parameters, but this was very low-certainty evidence. Five studies reported a variety of harm-related outcomes with inconsistent results. The balance of evidence suggested increased risk of pneumonia with enteral tube feeding. None of the included studies assessed behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence that tube feeding improves survival; improves quality of life; reduces pain; reduces mortality; decreases behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia; leads to better nourishment; improves family or carer outcomes such as depression, anxiety, carer burden, or satisfaction with care; and no indication of harm. We found some evidence that there is a clinically significant risk of pressure ulcers from enteral tube feeding. Future research should focus on better reporting and matching of control and intervention groups, and clearly defined interventions, measuring all the outcomes referred to here.
Topics: Adult; Caregivers; Dementia; Enteral Nutrition; Gastrostomy; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Malnutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34387363
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013503.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Nutrition is an important aspect of management in severe acute pancreatitis. Enteral nutrition has advantages over parenteral nutrition and is the preferred method of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Nutrition is an important aspect of management in severe acute pancreatitis. Enteral nutrition has advantages over parenteral nutrition and is the preferred method of feeding. Enteral feeding via nasojejunal tube is often recommended, but its benefits over nasogastric feeding are unclear. The placement of a nasogastric tube is technically simpler than the placement of a nasojejunal tube.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the mortality, morbidity, and nutritional status outcomes of people with severe acute pancreatitis fed via nasogastric tube versus nasojejunal tube.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS on 17 October 2019 without using any language restrictions. We also searched reference lists and conference proceedings for relevant studies and clinical trial registries for ongoing trials. We contacted authors for additional information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing enteral feeding by nasogastric and nasojejunal tubes in participants with severe acute pancreatitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias of the included studies, and extracted data. This information was independently verified by the other review authors. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane to assess the risk of bias and perform data synthesis. We rated the certainty of evidence according to GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs that randomised a total of 220 adult participants from India, Scotland, and the USA. Two of the trial reports were available only as abstracts. The trials differed in the criteria used to rate the severity of acute pancreatitis, and three trials excluded those who presented in severe shock. The duration of onset of symptoms before presentation in the trials ranged from within one week to four weeks. The trials also differed in the methods used to confirm the placement of the tubes and in what was considered to be nasojejunal placement. We assessed none of the trials as at high risk of bias, though reporting of methods in four trials was insufficient to judge the risk of bias for one or more of the domains assessed. There was no evdence of effect with nasogastric or nasojejunal placement on the primary outcome of mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.17; I = 0%; 5 trials, 220 participants; very low-certainty evidence due to indirectness and imprecision). Similarly, there was no evidence of effect on the secondary outcomes for which data were available. These included organ failure (3 trials, 145 participants), rate of infection (2 trials, 108 participants), success rate (3 trials, 159 participants), complications associated with the procedure (2 trials, 80 participants), need for surgical intervention (3 trials, 145 participants), requirement of parenteral nutrition (2 trials, 80 participants), complications associated with feeds (4 trials, 195 participants), and exacerbation of pain (4 trials, 195 participants). However, the certainty of the evidence for these secondary outcomes was also very low due to indirectness and imprecision. Three trials (117 participants) reported on length of hospital stay, but the data were not suitable for meta-analysis. None of the trials reported data suitable for meta-analysis for the other secondary outcomes of this review, which included days taken to achieve full nutrition requirement, duration of tube feeding, and duration of analgesic requirement after feeding tube placement.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to conclude that there is superiority, inferiority, or equivalence between the nasogastric and nasojejunal mode of enteral tube feeding in people with severe acute pancreatitis.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Length of Stay; Nutritional Status; Pancreatitis; Parenteral Nutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32216139
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010582.pub2 -
Nutrients May 2021Nutritional management of patients under palliative care can lead to ethical issues, especially when Enteral Nutrition (EN) is prescribed by nasogastric tube (NGT). The...
Nutritional management of patients under palliative care can lead to ethical issues, especially when Enteral Nutrition (EN) is prescribed by nasogastric tube (NGT). The aim of this review is to know the current status in the management of EN by NG tube in patients under palliative care, and its effect in their wellbeing and quality of life. The following databases were used: PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, Scielo, Embase and Medline. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, as well as different qualities screening, a total of three entries were used, published between 2015 and 2020. In total, 403 articles were identified initially, from which three were selected for this review. The use of NGT caused fewer diarrhea episodes and more restrictions than the group that did not use NG tubes. Furthermore, the use of tubes increased attendances to the emergency department, although there was no contrast between NGT and PEG devices. No statistical difference was found between use of tubes (NGT and PEG) or no use, with respect to the treatment of symptoms, level of comfort, and satisfaction at the end of life. Nevertheless, it improved hospital survival compared with other procedures, and differences were found in hospital stays in relation to the use of other probes or devices. Finally, there are not enough quality studies to provide evidence on improving the health status and quality of life of the use of EN through NGT in patients receiving palliative care. For this reason, decision making in this field must be carried out individually, weighing the benefits and damages that they can cause in the quality of life of the patients.
Topics: Adult; Enteral Nutrition; Female; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Length of Stay; Male; Palliative Care; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34066386
DOI: 10.3390/nu13051562 -
Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery Jul 2021Small bowel obstruction (SBO) remains a common problem for surgeons and nonsurgeons alike. Management of SBO has shifted from primarily being surgical to a nonoperative... (Review)
Review
Small bowel obstruction (SBO) remains a common problem for surgeons and nonsurgeons alike. Management of SBO has shifted from primarily being surgical to a nonoperative approach, which can be attributed to a multitude of reasons, including better understanding of the pathophysiology of SBO, the advent of laparoscopy, and improvement in diagnostic imaging. But given the nature of SBO, the need for surgical consultation continues to remain a necessity. This article will review the etiology, diagnosis, and management of SBO.
PubMed: 34305470
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1725204 -
Clinical Endoscopy Jul 2023With an aging population, the number of patients with difficulty in swallowing due to medical conditions is gradually increasing. In such cases, enteral nutrition is... (Review)
Review
With an aging population, the number of patients with difficulty in swallowing due to medical conditions is gradually increasing. In such cases, enteral nutrition is administered through a temporary nasogastric tube. However, the long-term use of a nasogastric tube leads to various complications and a decreased quality of life. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the percutaneous placement of a tube into the stomach that is aided endoscopically and may be an alternative to a nasogastric tube when enteral nutritional is required for four weeks or more. This paper is the first Korean clinical guideline for PEG developed jointly by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research and led by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. These guidelines aimed to provide physicians, including endoscopists, with the indications, use of prophylactic antibiotics, timing of enteric nutrition, tube placement methods, complications, replacement, and tube removal for PEG based on the currently available clinical evidence.
PubMed: 37430395
DOI: 10.5946/ce.2023.062