Skip to main content

Blind placement of postpyloric feeding tubes at the bedside in intensive care

Postpyloric feeding is recommended for those who cannot tolerate gastric enteral nutrition or who are at high risk of aspiration [1,2,3]. This approach can reduce respiratory and gastrointestinal complications and achieve nutritional goals earlier and more effectively. A large cohort study that investigated the nutritional support habits in the intensive care unit (ICU) revealed that the nasojejunal tube was only applied in 5.5% of the patients [4]. The lack of effective transpyloric placement methods may be a critical reason for the low application of nasojejunal tube. Various blind techniques for postpyloric feeding tube placement have been applied to clinical practice. Unfortunately, no unified opinion exists for these techniques. Several studies state that the success rate of blind placement ranged from 35% to 100%. Consequently, blind placements using the Corpak postpyloric feeding tube may be another alternative approach. Andrew et al. reported that the best success rate was 90% [5]. However, only 20 patients with gastric ileus were enrolled in their study. This retrospective study evaluated the safety and efficiency of blind bedside postpyloric placement and investigated the potential risk factors influencing the placement in critically ill patients.

The study protocol was approved by Zhujiang Hospital Ethical Committees (2020-KY-064-01). Patients who underwent blind bedside insertion of Corpak postpyloric feeding tube between December 2016 and January 2020 were included in Department of Critical Care Medicine. This operation was performed by experienced head nurses or nurse leaders. For patients without any contraindications, 10 mg of metoclopramide was administrated before the intubation. Upper abdominal radiography was requested to confirm the position of the tube tip within 24 h. The primary outcome was the success rate of placement. The success rates of post-third portion of the duodenum (D3), post-fourth portion of the duodenum (D4), proximal jejunum placement, insertion length, time for insertion, number of attempts, and the possible risk factors for tube placement failure were secondary outcomes. Safety endpoints were major tube-associated and metoclopramide-related adverse events.

The postpyloric placement was achieved in 83.7% (236/282) of patients, with 69.9% (197/282) of the patients completed in the first attempt. The success rates of post-D3, post-D4, and proximal jejunum placement were 68.8%, 59.2%, and 25.9%, respectively. The mean length of insertion was 101.4 cm and the median time to insertion was 30 min, with 1.0 median number of attempts. These data are summarized in Table 1. Logistic regression analysis identified the use of vasopressor, patients with neurological diseases, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score ≥ 20, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 12, Acute Gastrointestinal (AGI) grade ≥ II, and with mechanical ventilation or continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) as independent risk factors influencing the success rate of placement (Fig. 1). The presence of above factors indicated the critical condition of the patients and the impaired state of their gastrointestinal function. Therefore, these patients always showed a lower success rate. On the contrary, patients without the above risk factors were more likely to show successful outcomes. The adverse event incidence in this study was 2.8%. Fortunately, no severe adverse events occurred. Nasal mucosa bleeding was the most frequent major tube-associated adverse events with an incidence rate of 1.8%. However, the metoclopramide-related adverse event was not observed.

Table 1 The primary outcomes and secondary efficacy outcomes
Fig. 1
figure1

Multivariate logistic regression analysis of factors for the success of postpyloric placement. OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval; P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant

In conclusion, blind placement of Corpak postpyloric feeding tubes at the bedside was considered to be safe and effective for critically ill patients, and the results of the current study further confirmed that all the aforementioned factors were independent risk factors and the findings of this may provide evidence for tailored therapy. Thus, this technique may facilitate the establishment of postpyloric feeding in the ICU.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

APACHE II:

Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II

SOFA:

Sequential organ failure assessment

AGI:

Acute gastrointestinal injury

CRRT:

Continuous renal replacement therapy

OR:

Odds ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

References

  1. 1.

    Taylor BE, Mcclave SA, Martindale RG, Warren MM, Johnson DR, Braunschweig C, et al. Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically Ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). Crit Care Med. 2016;44:390–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Kreymann KG, Berger MM, Deutz NE, Hiesmayr M, Jolliet P, Kazandjiev G, et al. ESPEN guidelines on enteral nutrition: intensive care. ClinNutr. 2006;25:210–23.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Reintam BA, Starkopf J, Alhazzani W, Berger MM, Casaer MP, Deane AM, et al. Early enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: ESICM clinical practice guidelines. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:380–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bendavid I, Singer P, Theilla M, Themessl-Huber M, Sulz I, Mouhieddine M, et al. NutritionDay ICU: a 7 year worldwide prevalence study of nutrition practice in intensive care. ClinNutr. 2017;36:1122–9.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Lee AJ, Eve R, Bennett MJ. Evaluation of a technique for blind placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes in intensive care: application in patients with gastric ileus. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32:553–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant 81971859 and 81971883), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China (Grant 2019A1515011856), and the Clinical Research Startup Program of Southern Medical University by the High-level University Construction Funding of Guangdong Provincial Department of Education (Grant LC2019ZD014).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

ZGL conceived of the study, and participated in its design and coordination and helped to revised the manuscript. PC participated in the design of the study and revised the manuscript. QWW participated in the design of the study and performed the statistical analysis. CPL and YBX collected the data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. ML collected the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Zhanguo Liu or Ping Chang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was reviewed and approved by Zhujiang Hospital Ethical Committees (2020-KY-064-01) with waiver of written consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Q., Xuan, Y., Liu, C. et al. Blind placement of postpyloric feeding tubes at the bedside in intensive care. Crit Care 25, 168 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03587-5

Download citation