• Arja Gerritsen, Marcel J van der Poel, Thijs de Rooij, I Quintus Molenaar, Jacques J Bergman, Olivier R Busch, Elisabeth M Mathus-Vliegen, and Marc G Besselink.
• Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
• Gastrointest. Endosc. 2015 Apr 1; 81 (4): 836-47.e2.

BackgroundNasoenteral 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.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of bedside electromagnetic (EM)-guided, endoscopic, and fluoroscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in adults.DesignSystematic review of the literature.PatientsAdult hospitalized patients requiring nasoenteral feeding.InterventionsEM-guided, endoscopic, and/or fluoroscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement.Main Outcome MeasurementsSuccess rate of tube placement and procedure- or tube-related adverse events.ResultsOf 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.LimitationsHeterogeneity and limited methodological quality of the included studies.ConclusionBedside 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.Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

12 keywords...

hide…