Why Nose is Running While in Feeding Tube
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Feb; 2013(2): CD003952.
Nasal versus oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants
Monitoring Editor: Julie Watson, William McGuire, and Cochrane Neonatal Group
University of York, Maternal and Infant Health and Care, Yorkshire and the Humber Health Innovation and Education Cluster, Department of Health Sciences, 2nd Floor, Seebohm Rountree Building, YorkUK, YO10 5DD
Hull York Medical School & Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, YorkY010 5DDUK
The Hospital for Sick Children, Pediatrics, 555 University Avenue, TorontoOntarioCanada, M5G 1X8
Abstract
Background
Enteral feeding tubes for preterm or low birth weight infants may be placed via either the nose or mouth. Nasal placement may compromise respiration. However, orally placed tubes may be more prone to displacement, local irritation, and vagal stimulation.
Objectives
To determine the effect of nasal versus oral placement of enteral feeding tubes on feed tolerance, growth and development, and the incidence of adverse events in preterm or low birth weight infants.
Search methods
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (to September 2012), conference proceedings, and previous reviews.
Selection criteria
Randomised or quasi‐randomised controlled trials that compared nasal versus oral placement of enteral feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants.
Data collection and analysis
We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. We synthesised data using a fixed‐effect model and reported typical risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and weighted mean difference (WMD).
Main results
Three studies fulfilled the review eligibility criteria. Two were parallel group trials (van Someren 1984; Dsilna 2005) and one was a cross‐over trial (Bohnhorst 2010). The two parallel group randomised controlled trials enrolled 88 preterm infants. Only one trial reported data on the pre‐specified primary outcomes for this review. This trial found no evidence of effect on the time taken to establish enteral feeding or the time taken to regain birth weight. However, the trial was underpowered to exclude modest effect sizes. We identified one randomised cross‐over trial in which 35 very preterm infants participated. This study did not find any statistically significant effects on the incidence of apnoea, desaturation, and bradycardia during the study period.
Authors' conclusions
There are insufficient data available to inform practice. A large randomised controlled trial would be required to determine if the use of naso‐ versus oro‐enteric feeding tubes affects feeding, growth and development, and the incidence of adverse events in preterm or low birth weight infants.
Plain language summary
Nasal versus oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants
When preterm or low birth weight infants are too immature or unwell to suck feeds they can receive their milk through a feeding tube passed via either the nose or the mouth. Although tubes placed via the nose may be more stable and less prone to displace than tubes passed via the mouth, there is concern that nasal tubes will partially obstruct breathing. Only three small trials were found that compared these two options and these did not find convincing evidence to support routine use of one route rather than the other.
Background
Description of the condition
The establishment of safe oral feeding in preterm or low birth weight infants may be delayed because of poor co‐ordination of sucking and swallowing, neurological immaturity and respiratory distress.
Description of the intervention
Enteral feeds may be delivered through a catheter (feeding tube) passed via the nose or via the mouth into the stomach or upper small intestine. There are potential advantages and disadvantages to both the nasal and oral routes for enteral feeding tube placement. Policy and practice varies between and within neonatal care units (Shiao 1996; Birnbaum 2009; Gregory 2012).
How the intervention might work
Enteral feeding tubes passed via the nose are easier to secure to the face than orally placed tubes. However, since newborn infants are obligate nose breathers, feeding tubes placed via the nose can cause partial nasal obstruction, which increases airway resistance and work of breathing (Stocks 1980; Greenspan 1990). Airway resistance may differ between infants of similar weights due to differences in nasal size and structure. Naso‐enteric intubation through the larger nostril may increase airway resistance as the infant is forced to breathe through an airway of smaller calibre. This increase in energy expenditure may potentially affect nutrient requirements and growth.
Orally placed enteral tubes are more frequently malpositioned compared to nasally placed tubes (Ellett 1998). Incorrect placement, or subsequent displacement, of feeding tubes into the lower oesophagus or into the lung can lead to aspiration, respiratory compromise, and increased energy expenditure. Furthermore, orally placed tubes may be easier to displace as they can loop inside the mouth. Repetitive movement of the orally placed tube may result in mucosal trauma and may increase the incidence of apnoea and bradycardia due to vagal stimulation. Similarly, orally placed duodenal and jejunal tubes may be easier to displace proximally, potentially increasing the risk of aspiration and respiratory compromise.
Why it is important to do this review
Given the potential for the route of enteral tube placement to affect important outcomes for preterm or low birth weight infants, we have attempted to detect, appraise and synthesise the available evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform practice and research.
Objectives
To determine the effect of nasal versus oral placement of enteral feeding tubes on feed tolerance, the incidence of adverse events, and growth and development, in preterm or low birth weight infants.
Methods
Criteria for considering studies for this review
Types of studies
Controlled trials using either random or quasi‐random patient allocation.
Types of participants
Preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestation) or low birth weight infants (< 2500 g) receiving enteral tube feeding.
Types of interventions
Trials comparing nasal versus oral placement of enteral feeding tubes. Feeding tubes could have been in place either continuously (indwelling) or placed just for the duration of feeding and removed between feeds provided the same strategy was used for both the nasal and oral placement groups.
Types of outcome measures
Primary outcomes
-
Time to establish full enteral tube feeds independently of parenteral fluids or nutrition (days).
Secondary outcomes
-
Adverse events:
-
incidence of non‐intentional removal or displacement of feeding tube;
-
apnoea defined as breathing pauses that last for > 20 seconds or for > 10 seconds if associated with bradycardia or oxygen desaturation (Finer 2006);
-
aspiration pneumonia/pneumonitis: clinical, radiological, or both, evidence of lower respiratory tract compromise that has been attributed to covert or evident aspiration of gastric contents.
-
-
Growth: time to re‐gain birth weight and subsequent rates of weight gain, linear growth, head growth, or skinfold thickness growth.
-
Time to independence from supplemental oxygen (days).
-
Time to establish full oral feeds (at least 120 mL/kg/day) (days).
Search methods for identification of studies
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (http://neonatal.cochrane.org/).
Electronic searches
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 10, 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2012) and EMBASE (1980 to September 2012). The search strategy used the following text words and Medical Subject Headings: [Infant, Newborn OR Infant, Premature OR Infant, Low Birth Weight OR Infant, Very Low Birth Weight OR neonate$ OR infan$ OR preterm OR low birth weight OR LBW] AND [Enteral Nutrition/methods OR Intubation, Gastrointestinal OR nasogastric OR orogastric]. We used a search filter in MEDLINE and EMBASE to limit retrieval to clinical trials. We did not apply any language restrictions.
We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials and WHO Clinical Trials Registry for completed or ongoing trials.
Searching other resources
We examined the references in studies identified as potentially relevant. We also searched the abstracts from the annual meetings of the Pediatric Academic Societies (1993 to 2012), the European Academy of Paediatrics (1995 to 2012), the UK Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (2000 to 2012) and the Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand (2000 to 2012). We considered trials reported only as abstracts to be eligible if sufficient information was available from the report, or from contact with the authors to fulfil the inclusion criteria.
Data collection and analysis
We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (neonatal.cochrane.org/) and The Cochrane Collaboration (Higgins 2011).
Selection of studies
Two review authors screened the title and abstract of all studies identified by the above search strategy. We assessed the full text of any potentially eligible reports and excluded those studies that did not meet all of the inclusion criteria. We discussed any disagreements until consensus was achieved.
Data extraction and management
We used a data collection form to aid extraction of relevant information from each included study. Two review authors extracted the data separately. We discussed any disagreements until consensus was achieved. We asked the investigators for further information if data from the trial reports were insufficient.
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies
We used the criteria and standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to assess the methodological quality of any included trials. Additional information from the trial authors was requested to clarify methodology and results as necessary. We evaluated and reported the following issues in the 'Risk of bias' tables:
-
Sequence generation: we categorised the method used to generate the allocation sequence as:
-
low risk: any random process, for example random number table; computer random number generator;
-
high risk: any non‐random process, for example odd or even date of birth; patient case‐record number;
-
unclear.
-
-
Allocation concealment: we categorised the method used to conceal the allocation sequence as:
-
low risk: for example telephone or central randomisation; consecutively numbered sealed opaque envelopes;
-
high risk: open random allocation; unsealed or non‐opaque envelopes, alternation; date of birth;
-
unclear.
-
-
Blinding: we assessed blinding of participants, clinicians and caregivers, and outcome assessors separately for different outcomes and categorised the methods as:
-
low risk;
-
high risk;
-
unclear.
-
-
Incomplete outcome data: we described the completeness of data including attrition and exclusions from the analysis for each outcome and any reasons for attrition or exclusion where reported. We assessed whether missing data were balanced across groups or were related to outcomes. Where sufficient information was reported or supplied by the trial authors, re‐included missing data in the analyses. We categorised completeness as:
-
low risk: < 20% missing data;
-
high risk: ≥ 20% missing data;
-
unclear.
-
Measures of treatment effect
We calculated risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous data with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). We determined the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for a statistically significant RD.
Unit of analysis issues
The unit of analysis is the participating infant in individually randomised trials and the neonatal unit for cluster randomised trials.
Dealing with missing data
We requested missing study data from the trial investigators.
Assessment of heterogeneity
If more than one trial was included in a meta‐analysis, we examined the treatment effects of individual trials and heterogeneity between trial results by inspecting the forest plots. We calculated the I2 statistic for each analysis to quantify inconsistency across studies and describe the percentage of variability in effect estimates that may be due to heterogeneity rather than sampling error. If substantial (I2 > 50%) heterogeneity was detected, we explored the possible causes (e.g., differences in study design, participants, interventions or completeness of outcome assessments) in sensitivity and subgroup analyses.
Data synthesis
We planned to use a fixed‐effect model for meta‐analyses.
Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity
Very low birth weight (< 1.5 kg) or very preterm (< 32 weeks' gestation at birth) infants.
Results
Description of studies
Included studies
Three studies fulfilled the review eligibility criteria. Two were parallel group trials (van Someren 1984; Dsilna 2005). One was a cross‐over trial (Bohnhorst 2010).
van Someren 1984 enrolled 42 preterm infants who required feeding via an enteral feeding tube. Gestational age at birth ranged from 30 to 34 weeks. Infants were randomised to receive either naso‐enteric or oro‐enteric feeding. Some of the infants in each group received transpyloric feeds, but the report of the trial does not state how many. The oral feeding tube was secured to the palate with a grooved orthodontic appliance (Sullivan 1981). Infants were recruited to the trial at a postnatal age of between one and 12 days and remained in the study until breast or bottle‐feeding had been established. The primary outcome of the trial was the incidence of episodes of periodic breathing and central apnoea assessed by respiratory and polygraphic monitoring on the third and seventh days after randomisation. The investigators also assessed rate of weight gain during the first two weeks of participation, the incidence of local complications such as oral ulceration, and a composite 'sickness score' (mainly a score of the need for and duration of respiratory support).
Dsilna 2005 recruited 46 infants (gestational age < 30 weeks or birth weight < 1200 g) who required feeding via an enteral feeding tube. Infants were randomly allocated to either gavage feeding via a nasogastric or an orogastric tube until 32 weeks' postmenstrual age. Subsequently, all infants were fed via the orogastric route. The outcomes assessed were nutrient intake during the trial period, time to achieve full enteral feeding, time to regain birth weight, and the incidence of various neonatal morbidities (including necrotising enterocolitis).
Bohnhorst 2010 undertook a randomised cross‐over (sequential treatment) trial in which 35 spontaneously breathing, very preterm infants (< 32 weeks' gestational age) with evidence of apnoea or bradycardia of prematurity participated. Infants were randomly allocated to either 12 hours of nasogastric or 12 hours of orogastric feeding followed by 12 hours of the alternative feeding route. Thirty‐two infants completed the study. The primary outcomes were the incidence of apnoea, desaturation and bradycardia during the study period.
Excluded studies
We excluded three studies (Symington 1995; Daga 1999; Kublick 2011; see table 'Characteristics of excluded studies').
Risk of bias in included studies
Quality assessments are detailed in table 'Characteristics of included studies'.
van Someren 1984: the method of randomisation used was not stated. Caregivers and assessors were not blinded to the intervention. The primary outcomes, respiratory monitoring data recorded either on the third or seventh day, were reported for 69% of the participating infants.
Dsilna 2005: allocation concealment was achieved using sealed opaque envelopes. Caregivers and assessors were not blinded to the intervention. Follow‐up was complete.
Bohnhorst 2010: the random sequence was computer‐generated but the allocation concealment method was not described. Caregivers were aware of the feeding tube placement route. Respiratory function recording were assessed blind to identity of the infant and the feeding route. Three infants did not complete the study because the frequency of apnoea or bradycardia necessitated respiratory support.
Effects of interventions
Nasal versus oral placement of enteral feeding tubes (Comparison 1)
Time to establish full enteral tube feeds (Outcome 1.1; Analysis 1.1 )
Analysis
Comparison 1 Nasal versus oral placement of enteral feeding tubes, Outcome 1 Time to achieve full enteral feeding (days after birth).
Dsilna 2005 did not find a statistically significant difference: MD ‐2.7 (95% CI ‐11.9 to 6.5) days after birth. The other trials did not report this outcome.
Adverse events: none of the trials reported the incidence of non‐intentional removal or displacement of feeding tube or the incidence of aspiration pneumonia/pneumonitis.
van Someren 1984 did not find any statistically significant differences in the frequency of episodes of apnoea between the groups on the third day post‐randomisation. On the seventh day, the nasal placement group had statistically significantly more recorded episodes of apnoea. However, the definition of apnoea was cessation of breathing for 5 seconds or greater rather than the more commonly used definition (cessation of breathing for ≥ 20 seconds) that we pre‐specified for this review.
Bohnhorst 2010 did not find any statistically significant differences in the frequency of apnoea, desaturation or bradycardia:
-
median (interquartile range) number of bradycardia/desaturation episodes per hour: 1.6 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.9) versus 1.0 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.6);
-
median (interquartile range) number of apnoea episodes per hour: 0.8 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.2) versus 0.8 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.2).
Dsilna 2005 did not report the incidence of frequency of apnoea, desaturation or bradycardia.
Growth (Outcome 1.2; Analysis 1.2 )
Analysis
Comparison 1 Nasal versus oral placement of enteral feeding tubes, Outcome 2 Time to re‐gain birth weight (days after birth).
Dsilna 2005 did not find a statistically significant difference in the time taken to regain birth weight: MD 0.90 (95% CI ‐1.3 to 3.1) days.
van Someren 1984 reported weight gain in the 37 infants who remained in the trial until at least 14 days post randomisation. There was a statistically significantly lower rate of weight gain in the first week after randomisation in the infants fed via naso‐enteric feeding tubes (0.6 vs 8.3 g/kg/day). In the second week after randomisation there was not a statistically significant difference (13.6 vs 12.3 g/kg/day).
Time to independence from supplemental oxygen (Outcome 1.3; Analysis 1.3 )
Analysis
Comparison 1 Nasal versus oral placement of enteral feeding tubes, Outcome 3 Need for oxygen supplementation (days after birth).
Dsilna 2005 did not find a statistically significant difference: MD 7.6 (95% CI ‐15.2 to 30.4) days. The other trials did not report this outcome.
Time to establish full oral feeds: not reported by any trials.
Subgroup analyses
Subgroup data for very low birth weight or very preterm infants were not available for van Someren 1984.
Dsilna 2005 and Bohnhorst 2010 recruited very low birth weight or very preterm infants (see above for outcomes).
Discussion
Summary of main results
There are only limited data available from two small parallel group randomised controlled trials and one cross‐over trial on the effect of the nasal versus the oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants. These trials had some methodological limitations including lack of blinding of caregivers and assessors and incomplete follow‐up assessment. The trials did not find evidence that the route of placement of enteral feeding tubes affects important outcomes.
Overall completeness and applicability of evidence
The identified trials were small, contained methodological weaknesses, and did not report all important outcomes. None of the trials reported the incidence of non‐intentional removal or displacement of feeding tube, yet this is the most commonly expressed anxiety from parents attempting to perform this activity on the neonatal unit or when discharged home with an infant receiving enteral tube feeding (Howell 2011).
We excluded two trials that compared feeding with indwelling nasogastric tubes versus intermittently placed orogastric tubes (Symington 1995; Kublick 2011). This co‐intervention (leaving the nasogastric tube in place versus replacing the orogastric tube at each feed) prevents independent assessment of the effects of nasal versus oral tube placement. However, it may be that this comparison is viewed as pragmatic by some clinicians, caregivers and parents and that a separate or subgroup review of trials of these two approaches is merited.
It may also be appropriate to consider whether the route of placement of feeding tubes affects other outcomes including infant distress during placement, and parental views. These might include parental perceptions of ease of placement and security, especially given that infants may be discharged home with a feeding tube in situ (Collins 2003).
Quality of the evidence
The included trials contained various methodological weaknesses (Figure 1).
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
In van Someren 1984, the method of randomisation was not stated so it is possible that allocation was not concealed and the assignment of infants to one or other feeding route could have been predicted. This may have allowed bias in allocation of infants that could have affected the outcomes independently of the intervention. The mean postnatal age of entry into the study was two days for the nasal group compared to six days for the oral group. This difference may have been a factor in the lower rate of weight gain in the nasal group during the first seven days of assessment. More infants in the oral group would have already transitioned through the normal postnatal weight loss that occurs during the first week of postnatal life, whereas many infants in the nasal group were still in this postnatal weight loss phase. The difference in weight gain was not sustained during the second week of the study period. Furthermore, the finding of a difference in the frequency of apnoea identified on the seventh day after entry into the trial should also be interpreted cautiously. Follow‐up assessment was incomplete and the definition of apnoea used in the trial was different from that of consensus agreements of the definition of clinically significant apnoea. Finally, oral placement of the feeding tube relied on the use of a palatal appliance to secure the tube thus limiting the applicability of the study findings to the more common practice of securing orally placed tubes at the lips.
The second parallel group trial was more methodologically rigorous but assessed only short‐term outcomes (Dsilna 2005). The trial did not provide any evidence of effect on the time taken to establish enteral feeds, weight gain during the early neonatal period, or time taken to wean from oxygen supplementation. However, only 46 infants in total participated and the trial was underpowered to exclude modest but plausible effect sizes.
The cross‐over trial used a computer‐generated random sequence to determine the sequence in which infant received naso‐enteric versus oro‐enteric feeding (Bohnhorst 2010). The method of allocation concealment was not stated but this may be less important as a source of bias given that all infants received both interventions and acted as their own 'internal' controls. Caregivers were aware of the feeding route but the assessment of respiratory monitor recordings was undertaken blind to the identity of the infant and the feeding route. Although 32 of 35 infants completed the assessment, the three excluded infants all had episodes of apnoea and desaturation or bradycardia sufficient to require respiratory support. Inclusion of outcomes data for these infants may have altered the findings of the trial.
Authors' conclusions
What's new
| Date | Event | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 28 September 2012 | New citation required but conclusions have not changed | Search updated in September 2012. One new trial included (Bohnhorst 2010). We have revised the outcomes for this review. Adverse events outcomes now include the incidence of non‐intentional removal or displacement of feeding tube. |
| 28 September 2012 | New search has been performed | This review updates the review "Nasal versus oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants" published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3, 2004 (Hawes 2004). |
Acknowledgements
We thank Judith Hawes and Peter McEwan for contributing to the inception version of this review (Hawes 2004).
We thank Ann Dsilna for clarifying aspects of her study (Dsilna 2005).
Notes
New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)
Data and analyses
Comparison 1
Nasal versus oral placement of enteral feeding tubes
Characteristics of studies
Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]
| Methods | Randomised cross‐over trial | |
| Participants | 35 infants of gestational age < 32 weeks with a history of apnoea and desaturation (> 3 episodes of oxygen saturation ≤ 80% in 6 hours) or bradycardia (> 3 episodes of heart rate ≤ 80 beats per minute in 6 hours) participated 32 out of 35 infants completed the study | |
| Interventions | Nasal vs oral placement of enteral feeding tube (5 Fr gauge) for 2 sequential 12‐hour periods | |
| Outcomes | Oxygen saturation measured with pulse oximetry; episodes of apnoea and bradycardia | |
| Notes | Setting: Department of Neonatology, Hannover Medical School, Germany (2008‐2009) | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Adequate sequence generation | Low risk | Computer‐generated |
| Allocation concealment | Unclear risk | Method not stated |
| Blinding All outcomes | High risk | Caregivers not blinded, but respiratory monitoring assessed by investigator unaware of infant's identity or feeding tube route sequence |
| Incomplete outcome data addressed All outcomes | Low risk | Near‐complete follow‐up (32 out of 35 infants completed study) |
| Methods | Randomised controlled trial | |
| Participants | 46 infants (gestational age < 30 weeks or birth weight < 1200 g) who required feeding via an enteral feeding tube Setting: Neonatal Research Unit, Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm (1998‐2001) | |
| Interventions | Intermittent gavage feeding via a nasogastric (n = 22) vs an orogastric tube (n = 24) | |
| Outcomes | Nutrient intake, time to achieve full enteral feeding, time to re‐gain birth weight, neonatal morbidities (including necrotising enterocolitis) | |
| Notes | Infants allocated to feeding intervention until 32 weeks' postmenstrual age, then all fed via orogastric route | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Adequate sequence generation | Unclear risk | Random sequence generation method unclear |
| Allocation concealment | Low risk | Sealed opaque envelopes |
| Blinding All outcomes | High risk | Caregivers and assessors not blinded to the intervention |
| Incomplete outcome data addressed All outcomes | Low risk | Complete follow‐up |
| Methods | Randomised controlled trial | |
| Participants | 42 preterm infants who required feeding via an enteral feeding tube (gestational age 30‐34 weeks) Setting: Neonatal Research Unit, The London Hospital Medical College, London (early 1980s) | |
| Interventions | 22 infants allocated to feeding via an oro‐enteric tube, 20 infants via a naso‐enteric tube | |
| Outcomes | Episodes of apnoea and periodic breathing assessed with respiratory and polygraphic monitoring on day 3 and day 7 after randomisation (data available for 29 infants) | |
| Notes | The trial investigators excluded 2 infants who had been randomly allocated to the oro‐enteric feeding group as parental consent was not obtained to allow the palatal device to be applied | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Adequate sequence generation | Unclear risk | Method not stated |
| Allocation concealment | Unclear risk | Method not stated |
| Blinding All outcomes | High risk | Caregivers and assessors not blinded to the intervention |
| Incomplete outcome data addressed All outcomes | High risk | Respiratory monitoring (primary outcome) data reported for 69% of participants |
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]
| Study | Reason for exclusion |
|---|---|
| Daga 1999 | Observational sequential treatment study; not a randomised or quasi‐randomised trial |
| Kublick 2011 | Co‐intervention: indwelling nasogastric tubes versus intermittently placed orogastric tubes |
| Symington 1995 | Co‐intervention: indwelling nasogastric tubes versus intermittently placed orogastric tubes |
Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]
| Trial name or title | Nasogastric Tube vs. Orogastric Feeding Tube in Preterm Infants: Which is Best? |
| Methods | Randomised controlled trial (parallel group) |
| Participants | Preterm infants |
| Interventions | Nasogastric versus orogastric tube feeding |
| Outcomes | Time to reach full oral feeding |
| Starting date | 2006 |
| Contact information | Erez Nadir, MD Hillel Yaffe Medical Centre, Hadera, Israel Email: erezn@hy.health.gov.il |
| Notes | Primary investigator states that study completed and data being analysed and prepared for publication (October 2012) |
Differences between protocol and review
We have revised the outcomes for this review. Adverse events outcomes now include the incidence of non‐intentional removal or displacement of feeding tube.
Contributions of authors
William McGuire and Julie Watson revised the protocol for this review, undertook electronic searches and handsearches, screened the title and abstract of identified studies and the full text of potentially relevant studies. The authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the included trials, extracted the relevant information and completed this final review update.
Sources of support
Internal sources
-
NIHR Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK.
External sources
-
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, USA.
Editorial support of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group has been funded with federal funds from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, USA, under Contract No. HHSN275201100016C
Declarations of interest
None.
References
References to studies included in this review
Bohnhorst 2010 {published data only}
- Bohnhorst B, Cech K, Peter C, Doerdelmann M. Oral versus nasal route for placing feeding tubes: no effect on hypoxemia and bradycardia in infants with apnea of prematurity. Neonatology 2010;98(2):143‐9. [PUBMED: 20234138] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Dsilna 2005 {published data only}
- Dsilna A, Christensson K, Alfredsson L, Lagercrantz H, Blennow M. Continuous feeding promotes gastrointestinal tolerance and growth in very low birth weight infants. Journal of Pediatrics 2005;147(1):43‐9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
van Someren 1984 {published data only}
- Someren V, Linnett SJ, Stothers JK, Sullivan PG. An investigation into the benefits of resiting nasoenteric feeding tubes. Pediatrics 1984;74(3):379‐83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
References to studies excluded from this review
Daga 1999 {published data only}
- Daga SR, Lunkad NG, Daga AS, Ahuja VK. Orogastric versus nasogastric feeding of newborn babies. Tropical Doctor 1999;29(4):242‐3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kublick 2011 {published data only}
- Kublick JA. The Impact of Nasogastric Indwelling Versus Oral Intermittent Tube Feeding Methods on Premature Infants [Master of Nursing thesis]. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba, 2011. [Google Scholar]
Symington 1995 {published data only}
- Symington A, Ballantyne M, Pinelli J, Stevens B. Indwelling versus intermittent feeding tubes in premature neonates. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing 1995;24(4):321‐6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
References to ongoing studies
Nadir 2007 {published data only}
- Nasogastric Tube vs. Orogastric Feeding Tube in Preterm Infants: Which is Best?. Ongoing study 2006.
Additional references
Birnbaum 2009
- Birnbaum R, Limperopoulos C. Nonoral feeding practices for infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. Advances in Neonatal Care 2009;9(4):180‐4. [PUBMED: 19696573] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Collins 2003
- Collins CT, Makrides M, McPhee AJ. Early discharge with home support of gavage feeding for stable preterm infants who have not established full oral feeds. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003743] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ellett 1998
- Ellett ML, Maahs J, Forsee S. Prevalence of feeding tube placement errors and associated risk factors in children. MCN; American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing 1998;23(5):234‐9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Finer 2006
- Finer NN, Higgins R, Kattwinkel J, Martin RJ. Summary proceedings from the apnea‐of‐prematurity group. Pediatrics 2006; Vol. 117, issue 3 Pt 2:S47‐51. [PUBMED: 16777822] [PubMed]
Greenspan 1990
- Greenspan JS, Wolfson MR, Holt WJ, Shaffer TH. Neonatal gastric intubation: differential respiratory effects between nasogastric and orogastric tubes. Pediatric Pulmonology 1990;8(4):254‐8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gregory 2012
- Gregory KE, Connolly TC. Enteral feeding practices in the NICU: results from a 2009 Neonatal Enteral Feeding Survey. Advances in Neonatal Care 2012;12(1):46‐55. [PUBMED: 22301544] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Higgins 2011
- Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Howell 2011
- Howell E, Graham C. Parents' experiences of neonatal units: a report from the findings of a national survey. Oxford: Picker Institute Europe, 2011. [Google Scholar]
POPPY Steering Group 2009
- POPPY Steering Group. Family‐centred care in neonatal units. A summary of research results and recommendations from the POPPY project. London: NCT, 2009. [Google Scholar]
Shiao 1996
- Shiao SY, DiFiore TE. A survey of gastric tube practices in level II and level III nurseries. Issues of Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing 1996;19(3):209‐20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Stocks 1980
- Stocks J. Effect of nasogastric tubes on nasal resistance during infancy. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1980;55(1):17‐21. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sullivan 1981
- Sullivan PG, Haringman H. An intra‐oral appliance to stabilise orogastric tubes in premature infants. Lancet 1981;1(8217):416‐7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
References to other published versions of this review
Hawes 2004
- Hawes J, McEwan P, McGuire W. Nasal versus oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003952.pub2] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews are provided here courtesy of Wiley
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7104507/
0 Response to "Why Nose is Running While in Feeding Tube"
แสดงความคิดเห็น