• Nathan Boyer, Mary S McCarthy, and Cristin A Mount.
• Department of Medicine, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington.
• J Hosp Med. 2014 Jan 1;9(1):23-8.

BackgroundInitiation of enteral feeding is an important part of the best practice model for critically ill patients. Although nasogastric feeding is appropriate for the majority of patients requiring short-term nutrition support, certain patients benefit greatly from postpyloric feeding.ObjectiveTo determine which of 2 specialized enteral tube systems achieved postpyloric placement on initial insertion attempt most efficiently.DesignRetrospective study comparing the Tiger 2 tube (T2T) and Cortrak Enteral Access System (C-EAS).SettingAcademic medical center, mixed intensive care unit (ICU).PatientsAll patients admitted to the ICU between 2009 and 2013 who had either a C-EAS or T2T placed.MeasurementsSuccess rate for postpyloric placement, congruency of real-time tube placement with x-ray confirmation for C-EAS, and complication rates.ResultsSeventy-one T2T and 74 C-EAS patients were included. The T2T was postpyloric 62% (44/71) of attempted placements. C-EAS was postpyloric 43% (32/74) of attempted placements (P = 0.03). C-EAS tracings accurately reflected chest x-ray findings 83% and 82% for postpyloric and non-postpyloric insertion, respectively. During the entire study period, no adverse events were recorded.ConclusionOur institution evaluated 2 different systems designed to ensure postpyloric placement of a small bore feeding tube. No literature exists directly comparing the 2 systems. Our retrospective review, although limited, showed that the T2T was more effective at postpyloric placement on first attempt. Although 1 benefit of the C-EAS system may be real-time visualization, our practice showed this system to be user dependent, which likely led to less success with postpyloric placement.Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

21 keywords...

hide…