Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2000
Transnasal versus transoral endoscopy for the placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in critically ill patients.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Külling D, Bauerfeind P, Fried M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Nasoenteral feeding tube placement with the Seldinger technique using transoral endoscopy is a tedious procedure. This study compared the transoral approach with a new technique that uses a transnasal endoscope without the need for a mouth-to-nose wire transfer.
METHODS: Critically ill patients requiring nasoenteral feeding tube placement were randomly assigned to the transoral technique using a standard upper endoscope (n = 80) or the transnasal method using a 5.3 mm fiberscope (n = 80). Procedure time, medication requirement, technical difficulty, patient tolerance, and radiologic tube position were assessed.
RESULTS: The two groups were similar with regard to baseline medication, endoscopic findings, as well as overall technical difficulty and patient tolerance. The transnasal technique required less procedure time (median 8.0 versus 12.0 minutes, p < 0.001) and less relaxant medication (p = 0.029). Furthermore, it caused fewer circulatory (p = 0.040) and respiratory (p = 0.016) alterations regardless of the application of sedative or relaxant medication. The transnasal endoscope was inferior with respect to passage through the pylorus (p = 0.003) and duodenum (p = 0.020). These differences were significant in univariate hypothesis testing. Bonferroni correction for multiple testing of data removed the significance at p > 0.0031. Both techniques achieved similar rates of successful tube placement in the small bowel (86% versus 84%, p = 0.82).
CONCLUSION: Transnasal endoscopy allows accurate placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in critically ill patients and is superior to transoral endoscopy in terms of procedure time, medication requirement, and safety.
METHODS: Critically ill patients requiring nasoenteral feeding tube placement were randomly assigned to the transoral technique using a standard upper endoscope (n = 80) or the transnasal method using a 5.3 mm fiberscope (n = 80). Procedure time, medication requirement, technical difficulty, patient tolerance, and radiologic tube position were assessed.
RESULTS: The two groups were similar with regard to baseline medication, endoscopic findings, as well as overall technical difficulty and patient tolerance. The transnasal technique required less procedure time (median 8.0 versus 12.0 minutes, p < 0.001) and less relaxant medication (p = 0.029). Furthermore, it caused fewer circulatory (p = 0.040) and respiratory (p = 0.016) alterations regardless of the application of sedative or relaxant medication. The transnasal endoscope was inferior with respect to passage through the pylorus (p = 0.003) and duodenum (p = 0.020). These differences were significant in univariate hypothesis testing. Bonferroni correction for multiple testing of data removed the significance at p > 0.0031. Both techniques achieved similar rates of successful tube placement in the small bowel (86% versus 84%, p = 0.82).
CONCLUSION: Transnasal endoscopy allows accurate placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in critically ill patients and is superior to transoral endoscopy in terms of procedure time, medication requirement, and safety.