TY - JOUR
T1 - Systematic review on bedside electromagnetic-guided, endoscopic, and fluoroscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes
AU - Gerritsen, Arja
AU - Van Der Poel, Marcel J.
AU - De Rooij, Thijs
AU - Molenaar, IQ
AU - Bergman, Jacques J.
AU - Busch, Olivier R.
AU - Mathus-Vliegen, Elisabeth M.
AU - Besselink, Marc G.
PY - 2015/1/1
Y1 - 2015/1/1
N2 - Background Nasoenteral tube feeding is frequently required in hospitalized patients to either prevent or treat malnutrition, but data on the optimal strategy of tube placement are lacking. Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of bedside electromagnetic (EM)-guided, endoscopic, and fluoroscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in adults. Design Systematic review of the literature. Patients Adult hospitalized patients requiring nasoenteral feeding. Interventions EM-guided, endoscopic, and/or fluoroscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. Main Outcome Measurements Success rate of tube placement and procedure- or tube-related adverse events. Results Of 354 screened articles, 28 studies were included. Data on 4056 patients undergoing EM-guided (n = 2921), endoscopic (n = 730), and/or fluoroscopic (n = 405) nasoenteral feeding tube placement were extracted. Tube placement was successful in 3202 of 3789 (85%) EM-guided procedures compared with 706 of 793 (89%) endoscopic and 413 of 446 (93%) fluoroscopic procedures. Reinsertion rates were similar for EM-guidance (270 of 1279 [21%] patients) and endoscopy (64 of 394 [16%] patients) or fluoroscopy (10 of 38 [26%] patients). The mean (standard deviation) procedure time was shortest with EM-guided placement (13.4 [12.9] minutes), followed by endoscopy and fluoroscopy (14.9 [8.7] and 16.2 [23.6] minutes, respectively). Procedure-related adverse events were infrequent (0.4%, 4%, and 3%, respectively) and included mainly epistaxis. The tube-related adverse event rate was lowest in the EM-guided group (36 of 242 [15%] patients), followed by fluoroscopy (40 of 191 [21%] patients) and endoscopy (115 of 384 [30%] patients) and included mainly dislodgment and blockage of the tube. Limitations Heterogeneity and limited methodological quality of the included studies. Conclusion Bedside EM-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes appears to be as safe and effective as fluoroscopic or endoscopic placement. EM-guided tube placement by nurses may be preferred over more costly procedures performed by endoscopists or radiologists, but randomized studies are lacking.
AB - Background Nasoenteral tube feeding is frequently required in hospitalized patients to either prevent or treat malnutrition, but data on the optimal strategy of tube placement are lacking. Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of bedside electromagnetic (EM)-guided, endoscopic, and fluoroscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in adults. Design Systematic review of the literature. Patients Adult hospitalized patients requiring nasoenteral feeding. Interventions EM-guided, endoscopic, and/or fluoroscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. Main Outcome Measurements Success rate of tube placement and procedure- or tube-related adverse events. Results Of 354 screened articles, 28 studies were included. Data on 4056 patients undergoing EM-guided (n = 2921), endoscopic (n = 730), and/or fluoroscopic (n = 405) nasoenteral feeding tube placement were extracted. Tube placement was successful in 3202 of 3789 (85%) EM-guided procedures compared with 706 of 793 (89%) endoscopic and 413 of 446 (93%) fluoroscopic procedures. Reinsertion rates were similar for EM-guidance (270 of 1279 [21%] patients) and endoscopy (64 of 394 [16%] patients) or fluoroscopy (10 of 38 [26%] patients). The mean (standard deviation) procedure time was shortest with EM-guided placement (13.4 [12.9] minutes), followed by endoscopy and fluoroscopy (14.9 [8.7] and 16.2 [23.6] minutes, respectively). Procedure-related adverse events were infrequent (0.4%, 4%, and 3%, respectively) and included mainly epistaxis. The tube-related adverse event rate was lowest in the EM-guided group (36 of 242 [15%] patients), followed by fluoroscopy (40 of 191 [21%] patients) and endoscopy (115 of 384 [30%] patients) and included mainly dislodgment and blockage of the tube. Limitations Heterogeneity and limited methodological quality of the included studies. Conclusion Bedside EM-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes appears to be as safe and effective as fluoroscopic or endoscopic placement. EM-guided tube placement by nurses may be preferred over more costly procedures performed by endoscopists or radiologists, but randomized studies are lacking.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925373625&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2014.10.040
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2014.10.040
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84925373625
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 81
SP - 836-847.e2
JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
IS - 4
ER -