A randomised controlled feasibility and proof-of-concept trial in delayed gastric emptying when metoclopramide fails: We should revisit nasointestinal feeding versus dual prokinetic treatment: Achieving goal nutrition in critical illness and delayed gastric emptying: Trial of nasointestinal feeding versus nasogastric feeding plus prokinetics.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) commonly limits the use of enteral nutrition (EN) and may increase ventilator-associated pneumonia. Nasointestinal feeding has not been tested against dual prokinetic treatment (Metoclopramide and Erythromycin) in DGE refractory to metoclopramide. This trial tests the feasibility of recruiting this 'treatment-failed' population and the proof of concept that nasointestinal (NI) feeding can increase the amount of feed tolerated (% goal) when compared to nasogastric (NG) feeding plus metoclopramide and erythromycin treatment. METHODS: Eligible patients were those who were mechanically ventilated and over 20 years old, with delayed gastric emptying (DGE), defined as a gastric residual volume ≥250 ml or vomiting, and who failed to respond to first-line prokinetic treatment of 3 doses of 10 mg IV metoclopramide over 24 h. When assent was obtained, patients were randomised to receive immediate nasointestinal tube placement and feeding or nasogastric feeding plus metoclopramide and erythromycin (prokinetic) treatment. RESULTS: Of 208 patients with DGE, 77 were eligible, 2 refused assent, 25 had contraindications to intervention, almost exclusively prokinetic treatment, and it was feasible to recruit 50. Compared to patients receiving prokinetics (n = 25) those randomised to nasointestinal feeding (n = 25) tolerated more of their feed goal over 5 days (87-95% vs 50-89%) and had a greater area under the curve (median [IQR] 432 [253-464]% vs 350 [213-381]%, p = 0.026) demonstrating proof of concept. However, nasointestinally fed patients also had a larger gastric loss (not feed) associated with the NI route but not with the fluid volume or energy delivered. CONCLUSIONS: This is first study showing that in DGE refractory to metoclopramide NI feeding can increase the feed goal tolerated when compared to dual prokinetic treatment. Future studies should investigate the effect on clinical outcomes. EU CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTER: EudraCT number: 2012-001374-29.

The efficacy of feeding tubes: confirmation and loss.

Around 5% of hospital patients require enteral tube feeding, yet its efficacy and costs are poorly understood. The authors examined radio-opacity, reason for repeat X-ray and overall cost in consecutive patients having tubes confirmed by X-ray when using polyvinylchloride (PVC) Ryles tubes versus CORFLO® (CORTRAK Medsystems) polyurethane tubes (PUTs); and confirmation method and reason for tube loss over an enteral episode. Despite higher PUT cost, because more Ryles tubes required re-X-ray ± radio-contrast injection (0% compared with 26%, p=0.029), overall cost was almost identical (Corflo: £54.2 vs Ryles: £54.6). Confirmation of tube position by X-ray remains more common than pH (51% compared with 45%) and tube loss is mostly as a result of inadvertent patient removal (54%). These studies show that: a) when using X-ray confirmation, PUTs and PVC Ryles tube cost is similar; b) despite pH being taught as first-line confirmation, X-ray remains the most common method therefore PUT use may further reduce cost when staff and outcome costs are included. In addition, more reliable and repeatable bedside confirmation methods are required; c) most tube loss is potentially preventable by use of nasal bridles. Larger studies are required to establish baseline data on problems and cost-effectiveness of enteral tube feeding before intervention trials.

Nasogastric tube depth: the 'NEX' guideline is incorrect.

Misplacing 17-23% of nasogastric (NG) tubes above the stomach ( Rollins et al, 2012 ; Rayner, 2013 ) represents a serious risk in terms of aspiration, further invasive (tube) procedures, irradiation from failed X-ray confirmation, delay to feed and medication. One causal factor is that in the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) guidance to place a tube, length is measured from nose to ear to xiphisternum (NEX) ( NSPA, 2011 ); NEX is incorrect because it only approximates the nose to gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) distance and is therefore too short. To overcome this and because the xiphisternum is more difficult to locate, local policy is to measure in the opposite direction; xiphisternum to ear to nose (XEN), then add 10 cm. The authors determined whether external body measurements can be used to estimate the NG tube length to safely reach the gastric body. This involved testing the statistical association of body length, age, sex and XEN in consecutive critically ill patients against internal anatomical landmarks determined from an electromagnetic (EM) trace of the tube path. XEN averaged 50 cm in 71 critically ill patients aged 53±20 years. Tube marking and the EM trace were used to determine mean insertion distances at pre-gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) (48 cm), where the tube first turns left towards the stomach and becomes shallow on the trace; gastric body (62 cm), where the tube reaches the left-most part of the stomach; and gastric antrum (73 cm) at the midline on the EM trace. Using body length, age, sex and XEN in a linear regression model, only 25% of variability was predicted, showing that external measurements cannot reliably predict the length of tube required to reach the stomach. A tube length of XEN (or NEX) is too short to guarantee gastric placement and is unsafe. XEN+10 cm or more complex measurements will reach the gastric body (mid-stomach) in most patients, but because of wide variation, external measurements often fail to predict a safe distance. Only the EM trace or possibly direct vision can show in real time whether the tip has safely reached the gastric body.

Confirming nasogastric tube position with electromagnetic tracking versus pH or X-ray and tube radio-opacity.

Recent evidence suggests official statistics greatly underestimate the occurrence of complications from misplaced nasogastric (NG) tubes, even when detected. Current methods of confirming tube position do not provide adequate protection from misplacement. In addition, some tubes are inadequately radio-opaque. We prospectively audited placement of Cortrak polyurethane tubes (PUTs) to determine: accuracy of the electromagnetic (EM) trace in confirming tube position, radio-opacity of PUTs compared with previously placed polyvinylchloride (PVC) Ryles tubes and whether 12 French PUTs can be used to aspirate gastric residual volumes (GRVs). A total of 127 PUTs were placed in 113 patients. EM traces accurately confirmed tube position compared with X-ray (100% agreement). A 'gastric' EM trace has been defined for future use by other operators. PUTs were adequately radio-opaque with good agreement between interpreters (>98%) whereas PVC Ryles tubes were insufficiently radio-opaque (57-73%), invisible in 23% of cases and with poor agreement between interpreters leaving risk of error. The alternative of using pH confirmation was not possible in 44%. In these cases subsequent X-ray incurred a 2-hour delay to feed and medicines. In addition, neither post-placement pH testing nor X-ray warn of lung placement and potential trauma, whereas the EM trace warned of lung placement prior to damage in 7% of placements. 12 French, single-port PUTs appear adequate to aspirate large GRVs. EM tracing may be considered a standalone method of confirming NG tube position. Corflo (Cortrak) PUTs are adequately radio-opaque. Use of PVC Ryles and other inadequately radio-opaque tubes should stop.