AJCC
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


American Journal of Critical Care. 2003;12: 357-360
Copyright © 2003 by the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Respond to This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lenart, S.
Right arrow Articles by Polissar, N. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lenart, S.
Right arrow Articles by Polissar, N. L.

Comparison of 2 Methods for Postpyloric Placement of Enteral Feeding Tubes

By Sylvia Lenart, RN, MSN, CCRN and Nayak L. Polissar, PhD. From Overlake Hospital Medical Center, Bellevue, Wash (SL), and The Mountain-Whisper-Light Statistical Consulting, Seattle, Wash (NLP).

Background Multiple techniques are available for postpyloric placement of feeding tubes. Administration of metoclopramide and air insufflation are easily accomplished at the bedside. Variable success rates have been reported for both procedures.

Objectives To determine which method, administration of 10 mg of metoclopramide or gastric insufflation of 350 mL of air, is superior for successful postpyloric placement of feeding tubes at the bedside.

Methods A prospective trial consisting of 60 adult patients randomized to have a feeding tube placed by 1 of 2 methods, either after intravenous administration of 10 mg of metoclopramide or via gastric insufflation of 350 mL of air. Placement results were confirmed by radiography.

Results Among patients receiving narcotics, the 72% successful placement rate with insufflation was significantly better than the 11% success rate achieved with metoclopramide (P < .001). Among the narcotic-free patients, the 83% success rate with metoclopramide was not significantly better than the 58% success rate with insufflation (P = .37). The difference in treatment effect between narcotic and narcotic-free groups was significant (P < .001).

Conclusion Patients receiving narcotics should have feeding tubes placed via the air insufflation technique. The use of continuous or regularly scheduled administration of narcotics significantly decreases the effectiveness of metoclopramide in successful placement of feeding tubes.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Nutr Clin PractHome page
R. Gray, C. Tynan, L. Reed, J. Hasse, M. Kramlich, S. Roberts, J. Suneson, J. Thompson, and J. Neylon
Bedside Electromagnetic-Guided Feeding Tube Placement: An Improvement Over Traditional Placement Technique?
Nutr Clin Pract, August 1, 2007; 22(4): 436 - 444.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am J Crit CareHome page
N. A. Metheny
Preventing respiratory complications of tube feedings: evidence-based practice.
Am. J. Crit. Care., July 1, 2006; 15(4): 360 - 369.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.