Share this Article
Liu SY, Yang CP, Wei TS, Chen YC, Liang CH, Wu CH, Chen CL, Wu JJ
Correspondence: Dr Tsung-Ju Wu, liusenyong111@yeah.net
ABSTRACT
Introduction The exposed section of a traditional nasogastric (NG) tube can interfere with patients’ social activities and thereby result in distress. This study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a novel two-piece NG tube for patients with dysphagia.
Methods Ten patients with dysphagia were recruited between November 2011 and May 2012. Patients who were unconscious or in critical condition, had a traditional NG tube < 50 cm or > 60 cm in fixed length, or were unable to follow instructions or sign consent forms were excluded. The two-piece NG tube, which was placed in the patients for one week, comprised a removable external tube that can be joined to an internal tube via a T-connector, which was placed close to the naris. Events related to safety (e.g. nasal pressure sores, number of unplanned extubation, displacement and spontaneous migration of the NG tube, other unpredictable injuries) and effectiveness (e.g. liquid food spills, tube obstruction, perfusion rate, other adverse circumstances) were assessed daily.
Results All patients received feeding without complication using the two-piece NG tube and none experienced premature removal of the tube. No serious NG tube complications or malfunctions were observed.
Conclusion The results of this study indicate that the two-piece NG feeding tube is a feasible option for patients with dysphagia. Future improvements to the connector may help enhance its performance. A rigorous randomised controlled trial to examine the effects of the two-piece NG tube on patients’ quality of life and quality of medical care is being planned.
Keywords: dysphagia, feeding tube, nasogastric, quality of life, rehabilitation
Singapore Med J 2013; 54: 227-230; http://dx.doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2013079
REFERENCES
| 1. Stroud M, Duncan H, Nightingale J. Guidelines for enteral feeding in adult hospital patients. Gut 2003; 52(Suppl 7):vii1-vii12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gut.52.suppl_7.vii1 |
||||
| 2. Wade DT. Measuring arm impairment and disability after stroke. Int Disabil Stud 1989; 11:89-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/03790798909166398 |
||||
| 3. Huang NC, Wei TS, Liu SY. The influence of nasogastric tube to post-stroke depressive tendency and functional outcome. Taiwan J Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 34:19-26. | ||||
| 4. Carrión MI, Ayuso D, Marcos M, et al. Accidental removal of endotracheal and nasogastric tubes and intravascular catheters. Crit Care Med 2000; 28:63-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200001000-00010 |
||||
| 5. Neumann MJ, Meyer CT, Dutton JL, Smith R. Hold that x-ray: aspirate pH and auscultation prove enteral tube placement. J Clin Gastroenterol 1995; 20:293-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004836-199506000-00007 |
||||
| 6. Burns SM, Martin M, Robbins V, et al. Comparison of nasogastric tube securing methods and tube types in medical intensive care patients. Am J Crit Care 1995; 4:198-203. | ||||
| 7. Maccioli GA, Dorman T, Brown BR, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the maintenance of patient physical safety in the intensive care unit: use of restraining therapies--American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force 2001-2002. Crit Care Med 2003; 31:2665-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000095463.72353.AD |
||||
| 8. Dornan T, O'Neill P. Core Clinical Skills for OSCEs in Medicine. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2006:241-2. | ||||
| 9. Price B. Making sense of nasogastric intubation. Nurs Times 1989; 85:50-2. | ||||
| 10. Zhao YH. Methods of increasing the successful rate of one-time nasogastric tube placement and improving the effectiveness of drainage. Nurs Pract Res 2009; 16:1-2. | ||||
| 11. Beckstrand J, Cirgin Ellett ML, McDaniel A. Predicting internal distance to the stomach for positioning nasogastric and orogastric feeding tubes in children. J Adv Nurs 2007; 59:274-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04296.x PMid:17590213 |
||||
| 12. Metheny NA. Titler MG. Assessing placement of feeding tubes. Am J Nurs 2001; 101:36-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000446-200105000-00017 |
||||
| 13. Yamada T. Textbook of Gastroenterology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2003: 1062-3. | ||||
| 14. Norton B, Homer-Ward M, Donnelly MT, Long RG, Holmes GK. A randomised prospective comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding after acute dysphagic stroke. BMJ 1996; 312:13-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7022.13 |
||||
| 15. Bannerman E, Pendlebury J, Phillips F, Ghosh S. A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of health-related quality of life after percutaneous gastrostomy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2000; 12:1101-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00042737-200012100-00006 |
||||
| 16. Lin LC, Li MH, Watson R. A survey of the reasons patients do not chose percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy/jejunostomy (PEG/PEJ) as a route for long-term feeding. J Clin Nurs 2011; 20:802-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03541.x |
||||
| 17. Metheny NA, Clouse RE, Chang YH, et al. Tracheobronchial aspiration of gastric contents in critically ill tube-fed patients: frequency, outcomes, and risk factors. Crit Care Med 2006; 34:1007-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000206106.65220.59 |
||||
| 18. Ho MM, Hor YS, Li SC, et al. The exploration of home care patients' unplanned extubation and the primary caregivers' knowledge, and learning needs related to tubing care. J Long-term Care 2008; 12:72-90. | ||||