Nasogastric/nasoenteric (NG/NE) feeding tube placements are associated with adverse events and, without proper training, can lead to devastating and significant patient harm related to misplacement. Safe feeding tube placement practices and verification are critical. There are many procedures and techniques for placement and verification; this paper provides an overview and update of techniques to guide practitioners in making clinical decisions. Regardless of placement technique and verification practices employed, it is essential that training and competency are maintained and documented for all clinicians placing NG/NE feeding tubes. This paper has been approved by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) Board of Directors.

Enteral access is the foundation for feeding in patients unable to meet their nutrition needs orally and have a functional gastrointestinal tract. Enteral feeding requires placement of a feeding tube. Tubes can be placed through an orifice or percutaneously into the stomach or proximal small intestine at the bedside or in specialized areas of the hospital. Bedside tubes can be placed by the nurse or the physician, such as in the intensive care unit. Percutaneous feeding tubes are placed by the gastroenterologist, surgeon, or radiologist. This article reviews the types of enteral access and the associated complications.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

The procedures needed to insert nasojejunal tubes (NJTs) are often invasive or uncomfortable for the patient and require hospital resources. The objectives of this study were to describe our experience in inserting a self-propelling NJT with distal pigtail end and evaluate clinical validity and cost efficacy of this enteral nutrition (EN) approach compared with parenteral nutrition (PN).

Prospective study from July 2009 to December 2010, including hospitalized noncritical patients who required short-term jejunal EN. The tubes were inserted at bedside, using intravenous erythromycin as a prokinetic drug. Positioning was considered correct when the distal end was beyond the ligament of Treitz. Migration failure was considered when the tube was not positioned into the jejunum within 48 hours postinsertion.

Fifty-six insertions were recorded in 47 patients, most frequently in severe acute pancreatitis (69.6%). The migration rates at 18 and 48 hours postinsertion were 73.2% and 82.1%, respectively. There was migration failure in 8.9% of cases, and 8.9% were classified null (the tube was no longer in the gastrointestinal tract at 18 hours). There were no reported or observed complications. The mean duration of the EN was 12 ± 10.8 days. Five different types of EN formula were used. The total study cost was 53.9% lower compared with using PN in all patients.

Our study demonstrated that bedside insertion of a self-propelling NJT is a safe, cost-effective, and successful technique for postpyloric enteral feeding in at least 73% of the patients, and only 18% of patients could eventually need other placement techniques. It can avoid the need for more aggressive or expensive placement techniques or even PN if we cannot achieve enteral access.

Enteral nutrition by feeding tube is a common and efficient method of providing nutritional support to prevent malnutrition in hospitalised patients who have adequate gastrointestinal function but who are unable to eat. Gastric feeding may be associated with higher rates of food aspiration and pneumonia than post-pyloric naso-enteral tubes. Thus, enteral feeding tubes are placed directly into the small intestine rather than the stomach, and the use of metoclopramide, a prokinetic agent, has been recommended to achieve post-pyloric placement, but its efficacy is controversial. Moreover, metoclopramide may include adverse reactions, which with high doses or prolonged use may be serious and irreversible.

To determine the effect of intravenous metoclopramide on post-pyloric placement of the naso-enteral tube in adults.

Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10) which includes the CUGPD group's specialised register of trials, MEDLINE (1996 to 21 October 2014), EMBASE (1988 to 21 October 2014), LILACS (2005 to 21 October 2014)   We did not confine our search to English language publications. Searches in all databases were updated originally in January 2005, then in November 2008 and again in October 2014. No new studies were found in 2008 or in 2014.

We selected randomised controlled trials of adults needing enteral nutrition, who received intravenous or intramuscular metoclopramide to aid placement of transpyloric naso-enteral feeding tubes, compared to placebo or no intervention.

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. We present risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Four studies, with a total of 204 participants were included and analysed. The trials compared metoclopramide with placebo (two trials) or with no intervention (two trials). Metoclopramide was investigated at doses of 10 mg (two trials) and 20 mg (two trials). There was no statistically significant difference between metoclopramide versus placebo or no intervention administered to promote tube placement (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10). Metoclopramide at doses of 10 mg (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.11) and 20 mg (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.62) were equally ineffective in facilitating post-pyloric intubation when compared with placebo or no intervention.

In this review, we found only four studies that fitted our inclusion criteria. These were small, underpowered studies, in which metoclopramide was given at doses of 10 mg and 20 mg. Our analysis showed that metoclopramide did not assist post-pyloric placement of naso-enteral feeding tubes.Ideally randomised clinical trials should be performed that have a significant sample size, administering metoclopramide against control, however, given the lack of efficacy revealed by this review it is unlikely that further studies will be performed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Postpyloric feeding may facilitate tolerance to enteral nutrition (EN) and offers an alternative route of feed administration when prepyloric EN fails. However, this is constrained by the difficulty of establishing nasojejunal (NJ) tube placement, which may necessitate endoscopy or radiology with the inevitable delay in the instigation of treatment. A bedside technique of NJ tube insertion has, therefore, been developed to permit blind postpyloric intubation. The primary aim of this audit was to validate the success of bedside NJ tube placement using the described technique. Secondary end points included the time taken to establish EN and the value of aspirate pH as an indicator of tube tip placement.

Observational.

District general hospital.

Consecutive patients requiring EN.

The time taken to insert the tubes, the success rates in achieving the required position, and the time between the decision to feed and commencement of EN were recorded. The pH of any aspirate obtained was related to tube tip placement. Tube position was confirmed radiologically before starting EN. A total of 43 NJ tubes were inserted in 32 patients. Successful postpyloric intubation was achieved in 35 of 43 patients (81%). The median time for tube insertion was 18 (14-30) minutes. Time from the decision to feed to commencement of EN was 6 (5-18) hours. Aspirates were obtained from 26 of 43 (60%) intubations. Gastric aspirate pH readings were obtained for 19 of 43 (44%) of these intubations. Radiology reliably demonstrated the position of the tube tip in all cases.

By-the-bedside NJ tube placement is possible in more than 80% of patients. This may overcome delays in the commencement of feeds resulting from other methods of postpyloric tube placement. The use of aspirate pH on its own is not a reliable indicator of tube tip position.

This review explores the role of enteral and parenteral nutrition in severe acute pancreatitis and discusses the potential benefits of glutamine, omega-3 fatty acids, arginine and selenium together with probiotics and prebiotics in these patients. In addition, the method of refeeding during the convalescent period is also examined.

A complex picture is emerging in which enteral nutritional support may be important early in the course of the disease with parenteral nutrition being used more as a backup and possibly only after the systemic inflammatory response has peaked. Nasogastric feeding, sometimes supplemented by parenteral nutrition, is as efficacious as nasojejunal feeding. An individualized approach, in which strategies of nutritional support are tailored to patient response, is gaining currency. Data regarding specialized formulae are mixed but the use of prebiotics is showing promise and is worthy of further exploration. In the convalescent period, preliminary data also indicate that the risk of pain developing is no greater if a light diet is instituted rather than clear fluids.

Nutritional support in acute pancreatitis remains challenging and controversial with a number of different and unexpected approaches, including the use of nasogastric feeding and dual enteral and parenteral nutrition support, being adopted in recent clinical trials.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The use of small bowel access for small intestinal delivery of enteral nutrition is becoming more common. Patients at risk for gastric regurgitation and aspiration, gastric intolerance, and pancreatitis are some of the classic patient groups for which small bowel feedings may be necessary. The endoscopist should have command of all forms of endoscopic small bowel enteral access, including nasojejunal tube placement, percutaneous gastro/jejunostomy, and direct percutaneous jejunostomy. Knowledge of not only the procedure techniques, but also the potential complications, is imperative to achieving good clinical outcomes.

Transnasal endoscopy with a small-caliber endoscope has been shown to be helpful for the placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in patients who are critically ill. Success rates were limited by the short working length of the small-caliber endoscopes.

To compare the success rate of a 133-cm-long, small-caliber, prototype videoendoscope with a standard 92-cm-long, small-caliber, fiberoptic endoscope for the transnasal placement of feeding tubes.

Randomized controlled study.

University Hospital of Zurich, Switzerland.

Patients who were critically ill were randomly assigned to transnasal feeding tube placement with the standard 92-cm-long, small-caliber, fiberoptic endoscope, or with a new 133-cm-long, small-caliber, prototype videoendoscope. Patient characteristics, procedure time, technical difficulties, patient tolerance, and radiologic tube position were assessed.

Success rates of endoscopic placement of enteral feeding tubes.

A total of 157 patients were analyzed in 2 groups. The 2 groups were similar with regard to patient characteristics, body length, technical difficulty, and patient tolerance. The 133-cm-long instrument was superior with respect to successful placement of the nasoenteral feeding tube (93.6% vs 74.4%, P = .0008). Patient tolerance, procedure times, and overall technical difficulty were the same in both treatment groups, whereas passage through the duodenum was more difficult with the 133-cm-long instrument (P < .0001).

In rare cases, the randomization list could not be followed correctly.

This study demonstrated that placement of a nasoenteral feeding tube with a 133-cm-long, small-caliber videoendoscope is feasible, safe, and distinctly more successful than with a 92-cm-long, small-caliber standard instrument.

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.

To evaluate a blind 'active' technique for the bedside placement of post-pyloric enteral feeding tubes in a critically ill population with proven gastric ileus.

An open study to evaluate the success rate and duration of the technique in cardiothoracic and general intensive care units of a tertiary referral hospital.

20 consecutive, ventilated patients requiring enteral nutrition, where feeding had failed via the gastric route.

Previously described insertion technique-the Corpak 10-10-10 protocol-for post-pyloric enteral feeding tube placement, modified after 20 min if placement had not been achieved, by insufflation of air into the stomach to promote pyloric opening.

A standard protocol and a set method to identify final tube position were used in each case. In 90% (18/20) of cases tubes were placed on the first attempt, with an additional tube being successfully placed on the second attempt. The median time for tube placement was 18 min (range 3-55 min). In 20% (4/20) insufflation of air was required to aid trans-pyloric passage.

The previously described technique, modified by insufflation of air into the stomach in prolonged attempts to achieve trans-pyloric passage, proved to be an effective and cost efficient method to place post-pyloric enteral feeding tubes. This technique, even in the presence of gastric ileus, could be incorporated by all critical care facilities, without the need for any additional equipment or costs. This approach avoids the costs of additional equipment, time-delays and necessity to transfer the patient from the ICU for the more traditional techniques of endoscopy and radiographic screening.

To report the clinical experiences in the application of clip-assisted endoscopic method for nasoenteric feeding in patients with gastroparesis and patients with gastroesophageal wounds, and to compare the efficacy of nasoenteric feeding in these two indications.

From April 2002 to January 2004, 21 consecutive patients with gastroparesis or gastroesophageal wounds were enrolled and received nasoenteric feeding for nutritional support. A clip-assisted method was used to place the nasoenteric tubes. Outcomes in the two groups were compared with respect to the successful rate of enteral feeding, percentage of recommended energy intake (REI), and complication rates.

The gastroparesis group included 13 patients with major burns (n = 7), trauma (n = 2), congestive heart failure (n = 2) and post-surgery gastric stasis syndrome (n = 2). The esophageogastric wound group included eight patients with tracheoesophageal fistula (n = 2) and wound leakage following gastric surgery (n = 6). Two study groups were similar in feeding successful rates (84.6% vs 75.0%). There were also no differences in the percentage of REI between groups (79.4% vs 78.6%). Additionally, no complications occurred in any of the study groups.

Nasoenteric feeding is a useful method to provide nutritional support to most of the patients with gastroparesis who cannot tolerate nasogastric tube feeding and to the cases who need bypass feeding for esophageogastric wounds.

To compare the efficacy of blind transpyloric placement using a specifically designed nasojejunal tube (NJT) versus a standard nasogastric tube (NGT) in severe head injury (SHI).

This was a randomised trial conducted in a neurosurgical intensive care unit. Fourteen patients were enrolled with a Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) less than 8 (mean 6.8 SEM+/-0.36). Patients were randomised to receive either NJT or NGT.

There was an 83% (5/6 patients) spontaneous jejunal placement rate of NJT past the ligament of Treitz. The 17% (1/6 patients) jejunal placement failure rate for NJT was due to inappropriate technique. A 100% (8/8 patients) failure of the unweighted NGTs to pass through the pylorus into the jejunum was recorded (P=0.002).

In SHI, the specifically designed self-propelling NJT was effective in spontaneous transpyloric placement past the ligament of Treitz within 12h of introduction into the gastric cavity. The standard un-weighted NGT was ineffective. Additional studies are warranted to determine the clinical efficacy of this self-propelling NJT.

To assess a novel method, adapted from already published literature, for bedside placement of nasojejunal feeding tubes using erythromycin, air insufflation of the stomach and continuous ECG guidance.

Prospective study in a tertiary teaching hospital.

40 consecutive patients who required enteral nutrition and mechanical ventilation for at least 48 h.

Erythromycin (200 mg) was administered intravenously 30 min prior to the insertion of the feeding tube. The post-pyloric feeding tube was then inserted into the stomach and 500 ml air insufflated. Stomach ECG was performed, and during further insertion of the tube the QRS complex was continuously monitored for a change in polarity, suggesting passage across the midline through the pylorus. At the end of the procedure aspirate was obtained from the feeding tube and checked for alkaline pH. Exact tube position was determined by abdominal radiography.

In 88% of cases the feeding tubes were post-pyloric, with a median time to insertion of 15 min (range 7-75). No major complications were seen in 52 attempts. Change in QRS polarity had 94% sensitivity in predicting post-pyloric tip placement. Of the 32 alkaline pH aspirates 31 were post-pyloric.

This procedure is safe, effective and could be performed in a short time period within the confines of the intensive care unit without endoscopic assistance.

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.

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.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy of intravenous erythromycin as a method to facilitate feeding tube placement into the small intestine in critically ill patients. DESIGN Double blind, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING Medical and surgical intensive care units in an academic medical center. PATIENTS Prospective cohort of 36 consecutive adults requiring intensive care unit care and enteral tube feeding for nutritional support. INTERVENTION Infusion of a single dose of intravenous erythromycin (500 mg) or saline before placement of 10-Fr feeding tubes using a standardized active bedside protocol. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS We determined the success rate of feeding tube placement into or beyond the second portion of the duodenum and the time required for this procedure by experienced nurses. The feeding tube was considered to be postpyloric when the tip was in the second portion of the duodenum or beyond. The predictive value of a serial step-up in gastrointestinal aspirate pH from < or = 5.0 to > or = 6.0 was also determined. Use of intravenous erythromycin significantly improved the rate of feeding tube placement into the duodenum or jejunum (erythromycin group, 13 of 14 patients or 93% vs. the control group, 12 of 22 patients or 55%; p < .03). Erythromycin administration also significantly decreased the procedure time from 25 +/- 3 to 15 +/- 2 mins (p < .04). Feeding tube placement into either duodenum or jejunum was confirmed in all 18 patients with a pH step-up from < or = 5.0 to > or = 6.0.

A single bolus dose of intravenous erythromycin facilitates active bedside placement of postpyloric feeding tubes in critically ill adult patients.

Our objective was to evaluate the impact of gastric versus post-pyloric feeding on the incidence of pneumonia, caloric intake, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and mortality in critically ill and injured ICU patients.

Data sources were Medline, Embase, Healthstar, citation review of relevant primary and review articles, personal files, and contact with expert informants. From 122 articles screened, nine were identified as prospective randomized controlled trials (including a total of 522 patients) that compared gastric with post-pyloric feeding, and were included for data extraction. Descriptive and outcomes data were extracted from the papers by the two reviewers independently. Main outcome measures were the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, average caloric goal achieved, average daily caloric intake, time to the initiation of tube feeds, time to goal, ICU LOS, and mortality. The meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model.

Only medical, neurosurgical and trauma patents were enrolled in the studies analyzed. There were no significant differences in the incidence of pneumonia, percentage of caloric goal achieved, mean total caloric intake, ICU LOS, or mortality between gastric and post-pyloric feeding groups. The time to initiation of enteral nutrition was significantly less in those patients randomized to gastric feeding. However, time to reach caloric goal did not differ between groups.

In this meta-analysis we were unable to demonstrate a clinical benefit from post-pyloric versus gastric tube feeding in a mixed group of critically ill patients, including medical, neurosurgical, and trauma ICU patients. The incidences of pneumonia, ICU LOS, and mortality were similar between groups. Because of the delay in achieving post-pyloric intubation, gastric feeding was initiated significantly sooner than was post-pyloric feeding. The present study, while providing the best current evidence regarding routes of enteral nutrition, is limited by the small total sample size.

Enteral alimentation by feeding tube is a common problem and an efficient method of providing nutritional support to hospitalized patients with insufficient oral intake, but adequate gastrointestinal function. The use of metoclopramide, a prokinetic agent, has been recommended to achieve transpyloric placement, but its efficacy is controversial.

To determine the effect of intravenous metoclopramide on transpyloric passage of the naso-enteral tube.

Relevant RCTs were identified by electronic search through MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases.

Adults needing enteral nutrition. Types of intervention: Intravenous or intramuscular metoclopramide compared to placebo or no intervention. Types of studies: Randomised controlled trials. Types of outcome measures: The success of migration of transpyloric intubation.

The reviewers evaluated the allocation concealment, which was classified as adequate, uncertain or inadequate. Two reviewers extracted the data independently. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method.

Four studies were included and analysed. There was no statistically significant difference between intravenous or intramuscular metoclopramide administered to promote the tube migration (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.28). Intravenous metoclopramide 10 mg (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.23) and 20 mg (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 10.84) were equally ineffective in facilitating transpyloric intubation.

Four studies were included and analysed. There was no statistically significant difference between intravenous or intramuscular metoclopramide administered to promote the tube migration (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.28). Intravenous metoclopramide 10 mg (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.23) and 20 mg (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 10.84) were equally ineffective in facilitating transpyloric intubation.

This report details a study whose purpose was to show the safety of and describe the clinical and financial outcomes of nasogastric (NG) and nasojejeunal (NJ) tube feedings for nutritional support during and after intensive treatment for cancer. During a 17-month period, NG or NJ tubes were inserted in 25 patients who experienced, or were anticipated to experience, suboptimal nutrition during or after their chemotherapy (n = 14), radiation therapy (n = 2), or chemotherapy plus radiation (n = 5), after bone marrow transplant (n = 2), and as a result of neurological impairment (n = 2). Patient ages ranged from 1 month to 14 years. NG/NJ tubes were used for a total of 1415 patient days (median 40 days). Of those, 756 days occurred in the hospital (median, 18 days) and 659 were outpatient days (median = 12 days). Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) was used during 104 patient days (range, 1 to 35 days), and combination NG/NJ feedings were given with TPN for a total of 101 days. A comparable number of days of TPN therapy for the NG-fed patients would have cost $177,390 (average $135/day), compared with $65,700 (average, $50/day) for enteral feedings, for a savings of $111,690. Ten patients experienced grade 2 to 3 diarrhea and/or vomiting during the study. No untoward outcomes were identified. Enteral feedings were found to be a safe and cost-effective method for providing nutrition to these children with cancer.

When making decisions regarding nutrition support, many factors must be considered before committing a patient to receive parenteral or enteral nutrition. Parenteral nutrition (PN) is more expensive and technically more difficult to administer than enteral nutrition (EN). The charge for PN can range from US 200 dollars to 1000 dollars per day, where a standard hospital diet or enteral tube feedings might cost less than US 25 dollars/d. PN is also associated with a much higher incidence of biochemical complications such as hyperglycemia and other electrolyte abnormalities and catheter-related complications such as infection, thrombosis, or pneumothorax. For many years PN was preferred to EN because it was believed to be unwise to feed a critically ill patient into the gut. It has now been shown in multiple studies that it is not only feasible to feed critically ill patients early, but also it may be immunologically advantageous to feed enterally. The cost effectiveness of the nutrition support team approach to monitoring PN and EN should not be underestimated by hospital administrators. If enteral therapy can be instituted, significant patient-care cost savings may be realized. This presentation will discuss decisions that must be addressed in the intensive care unit. With more physician education, protocols can be designed to provide the most advantageous use of nutrition support for the benefit of the hospitalized patient.

A patient sustained deep dermal burns from contact with gastric contents following disconnection of his percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. We discuss the complications of gastrostomies and add this as a rare complication, which may be prevented by a modification to the outlet control of a PEG tube.

The requirements of growth and organ development create a challenge in nutrition management for the pediatric patient. The stress of critical illness further complicates the delivery of adequate nutrients. Enteral feeding has several advantages over parenteral nutrition (PN), which include preservation of the gastrointestinal mucosa and decreasing the occurrence of sepsis related to bacterial translocation. Although feeding through the gastrointestinal tract is the preferred route for nutritional management, there are specific instances when PN as adjunctive or sole therapy is necessary to meet nutritional needs. With meticulous attention to fluid, caloric, protein, and fat requirements along with monitoring the metabolic status of the patient, it is possible to provide full nutritional support for the critically ill child within 24 to 48 hours of hospital admission.

Nasogastric feeding in intensive care is poorly tolerated as a result of gastroparesis. Transpyloric (TP) feeding has been limited by difficulty in tube placement. This study was to independently validate the success rate of a previously published bedside TP feeding tube (FT) placement technique.

Prospective interventional study.

Tertiary pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) in a university hospital.

Children whose intensivist requested TP feeding, and who were without known fundoplication, pharyngeal trauma, or gastric ulceration.

After informed consent, an unweighted polyurethane feeding tube with a flexible wire stylet was inserted using a standard technique with metoclopramide, right lateral position, and air insufflation during advancement until <2 mL air could be aspirated after insufflation of 5-10 mL air. The tubes were inserted by one of the authors, whose training was only to observe one insertion, then perform one insertion with supervision.

Patient demographics, procedural data, and success rate based on radiography were prospectively recorded. There were 71 insertions on 38 patients from February 1999 to October 1999. Patients were aged 56 +/- 69.8 months, weighed 17.8 +/- 18 kg, 69% were ventilated, and 56% received procedural sedation. Success rate for TP-FT placement was 63/71 insertions (88.7%) in an average of 7.43 +/- 6.85 mins (median, 5 mins; range, <1-45 mins); of 38 patients, 36 had a successful TP- FT (95%). Insertion was well tolerated. Of the successful TP-FTs, on day 1 (n = 63) the FT was in distal duodenum or jejunum in 51% and by days 3-5 (n = 51), this increased to 75%.

Bedside placement of a TP-FT with this technique is simple, rapid, well tolerated, and highly successful with little training. Immediate radiograph to confirm TP placement may not always be necessary. In our experience, this technique has obviated the need to search for another method to achieve a transpyloric feeding tube.

Currently available bedside methods for determining feeding tube placement often provide inconclusive results. Therefore, additional data are needed to assist nurses in making decisions regarding tube location.

To describe the usual concentration of bilirubin in aspirates from newly inserted feeding tubes and to determine the extent to which these measures can contribute to pH alone in correctly predicting feeding tube location.

Gastrointestinal samples for concurrent pH and bilirubin testing were obtained from adult, acutely ill patients with newly inserted small-bore feeding tubes (nasogastric, n = 209; nasointestinal, n = 228) within 5 minutes of radiographs taken to determine tube location. Respiratory samples were tested (tracheobronchial, n = 126; pleural, n = 24). pH was measured with a pH meter, and bilirubin content was assayed spectrophotometrically. Results from the pH and bilirubin tests were compared with tube location as determined by radiography.

Mean pH levels in the lung (7.73) and intestine (7.35) were significantly higher than the mean pH level in the stomach (3.90; p < .001 for each comparison). Mean bilirubin levels in the lung (.08 mg/dl) and stomach (1.28 mg/dl) were significantly lower than the mean bilirubin level in the intestine (12.73 mg/dl; p < .001 for each). By visually inspecting distribution overlap and mean differences by tube site, results were dichotomized so that a combination of pH and bilirubin values could be used to develop a predictive algorithm. A pH of >5 and a bilirubin value of <5 mg/dl correctly identified all respiratory cases, whereas a pH >5 coupled with a bilirubin level of > or =5 mg/dl correctly identified three fourths of the intestinal cases. A pH of < or =5 coupled with a bilirubin value of <5 correctly identified more than two thirds of the gastric cases.

Preliminary laboratory-based data indicate that appropriate use of the proposed algorithm could significantly reduce the number of x-rays needed to exclude respiratory placement and to distinguish between gastric and intestinal placement.

Spontaneous transpyloric passage of nasoenteric feeding tubes is often unsuccessful in critically ill patients due to gastric ileus. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the success rate of endoscopic placement of postpyloric nasoenteric tubes and the time required to achieve goal enteral nutritional support in critically ill patients with gastric ileus. Surgical ICU patients with gastric ileus, documented by recorded high gastric residual volumes via a nasogastric tube, were identified for placement of a nasoenteric postpyloric tube via esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). EGD was performed bedside in the ICU, using intravenous sedation, for placement of a 43-inch (109 cm) 8 French tungsten-weighted nasoenteric tube with an inner stylet into the duodenum, and the tube was advanced as far distally as possible. Abdominal radiograph was obtained to confirm final tube position postprocedure. Enteral feedings were initiated immediately with a full-strength formula and increased to the goal enteral feeding rate as tolerated. Thirty-four patients underwent successful placement of postpyloric nasoenteric tubes by EGD. One procedure was aborted in a patient with adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who developed hypoxemia with gastric insufflation during the EGD. The mean time to achievement of goal enteral nutritional support was 20.8 hours. Tubes remained in place for a range of 6 to 37 days. Endoscopic placement of postpyloric enteral feeding tubes is highly successful, and allows for prompt achievement of goal enteral nutritional requirements. It has two main advantages: it eliminates the risk of patient travel to radiology for fluoroscopic placement, and allows for earlier initiation of enteral feedings because spontaneous passage of weighted nasoenteric tubes into the duodenum in critically ill patients is often unsuccessful.

Enteral nutrition is less expensive and often preferred to parenteral nutrition in the critically ill or injured patient. Gastric feedings are poorly tolerated in some patients, however, and postpyloric access is frequently difficult to obtain. In this report, we describe our experience with a new technique for bedside endoscopic placement of small intestinal feeding tubes.

Using both prospective and retrospective analysis, we studied our results with endoscopically placed postpyloric feeding tubes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. In this method, a 7F nasobiliary tube is passed via an endoscope into the proximal small bowel by a "push" technique. We recorded the demographic data of the patients, the feeding regimens subsequently used for these patients, and the overall feasibility and complications of the procedures themselves.

The technique was performed on 71 occasions in 61 ICU patients. The entire procedure averaged 29 minutes in a prospectively evaluated subset of patients. Small intestinal cannulation was successful in every case, including cases in which fluoroscopic attempts had failed. No complications developed from placement of the feeding tubes.

This report demonstrates that our bedside method of endoscopic placement of proximal small-bowel feeding tubes may be safely and expediently performed in ICU patients. Although not yet formally compared with other techniques, this procedure may have some advantages over traditional methods of small-bowel feeding tube placement.