These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Use of an electromagnetic device for insertion of bedside nasojejunal feeding tube in critically ill patients].
    Author: Liu YQ, He LS, Tan GL, Sun XR, Chen ZL.
    Journal: Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue; 2013 Mar; 25(3):171-3. PubMed ID: 23656771.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of an electromagnetic device for correct bedside placement of nasojejunal feeding tube for patients in intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The clinical data of 109 patients in ICU who accepted bedside nasojejunal feeding tube placement from January 2010 to September 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. All the patients were divided into three groups according to the difference in type of nasojejunal feeding tube and the placement technique: control group 1 (n=48, Flocare feeding tube and bedside blind insertion group), control group 2 (n=28, Corflo(®) feeding tube and bedside blind insertion group), observation group (n=33, Corflo(®) feeding tube and electromagnetic tube placement device group). The success rate, the times of placement, duration of nasojejunal feeding, and safety were compared among three groups. RESULTS: The success rate of control group 2 and observation group were higher than control group 1 (71.43%, 90.91% vs. 33.33%), rate of partial success and failure rate were lower than those of control group 1 (partial success rate: 17.86%, 3.03% vs. 35.42%; failure rate: 10.71%, 6.06% vs. 31.25%, all P<0.05), and no differences were found between control group 2 and observation group. The average times for successful placement in observation group was lower than that of control group 1 and control group 2 (1.6±0.5 vs. 6.6±3.2, 5.8±2.3, both P<0.05), and the average time for successful placement was shorter in observation group than that of control group 1 and control group 2 (12.48±3.78 minutes vs. 25.27±3.61 minutes, 23.58±4.87 minutes, both P<0.05), but there was no difference between control group 1 and control group 2. No complications occurred in all three groups. CONCLUSION: Placement of a nasojejunal tube with the aid of an electromagnetic device is an excellent method for enteral nutrition, as it is safer, more efficient, with high successful rate, less time spending, and easier to master for beginners.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]