Use of an electromagnetic-guided device to assist with post-pyloric placement of a nasoenteral feeding tube: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background and study aims While endoscopic-guided placement (EGP) of a post-pyloric nasoenteral feeding tube may improve caloric intake and reduce the risk of bronchoaspiration, an electromagnetic-guided placement (EMGP) method may obviate the need for endoscopic procedures. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of EMGP versus EGP of a post-pyloric feeding tube.

Methods Protocolized searches were performed from the inception through January 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. Only randomized controlled trials were included comparing EMGP versus EGP. Study outcomes included: technical success (defined as appropriate post-pyloric positioning), tube and patient associated adverse events (AEs), time to enteral nutrition, procedure-associated cost, and procedure time. Pooled risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) were calculated using a fixed-effects model and heterogeneity evaluated using Higgins test (I²).

Results Four randomized trials (n = 536) were included. A total of 287 patients were included in the EMGP group and 249 patients in the EGP group. There was no difference between EMGP versus EGP regarding technical success, tube-related AEs, patient-related AEs, procedure time, and time in the right position. Time to enteral nutrition favored EMGP (MD: –134.37 [–162.13, –106.61]; I² = 35 %); with significantly decreased associated cost (MD: –127.77 ($) [–135.8–119.73]; I² = 0 %).

Conclusions Based on this study, EMGP and EGP were associated with similar levels of technical success and safety as well as time to complete the procedure. Despite this, EMGP was associated with reduced cost and time to initiation of nutrition.

Publication History

Received: 16 April 2021

Accepted after revision: 01 December 2021

Article published online:
15 August 2022

• References

• 1 Arvanitakis M, Gkolfakis P, Despott EJ. et al. Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients – Part 1: Definitions and indications. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 81-92
• 2 Smithard D, Barrett NA, Hargroves D. et al. Electromagnetic sensor-guided enteral access systems: a literature review. Dysphagia 2015; 30: 275-285
• 3 Windle EM, Beddow D, Hall E. et al. Implementation of an electromagnetic imaging system to facilitate nasogastric and post-pyloric feeding tube placement in patients with and without critical illness. J Hum Nutr Diet 2010; 23: 61-68
• 4 Gerritsen A, van der Poel MJ, de Rooij T. et al. Systematic review on bedside electromagnetic-guided, endoscopic, and fluoroscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 836-847.e2
• 5 Byrne KR, Fang JC. Endoscopic placement of enteral feeding catheters. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2006; 22: 546-550
• 6 Ozdemir B, Frost M, Hayes J. et al. Placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes using magnetic guidance: retesting a new technique. J Am Coll Nutr 2000; 19: 446-451
• 7 Rao MM, Kallam R, Flindall I. et al. Use of Cortrak^® – an electromagnetic sensing device in placement of enteral feeding tubes. Proc Nutr Soc 2008; 67: E109
• 8 Wei Y, Jin Z, Zhu Y. et al. Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Intensive Care 2020; 8: 92
• 9 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339: b2535-b2535
• 10 Holzinger U, Brunner R, Miehsler W. et al. Jejunal tube placement in critically ill patients: A prospective, randomized trial comparing the endoscopic technique with the electromagnetically visualized method. Crit Care Med 2011; 39: 73-77
• 11 Gerritsen A, de Rooij T, Dijkgraaf MG. et al. Electromagnetic-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses is non-inferior to endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 1123-1132
• 12 Kappelle WFW, Walter D, Stadhouders PH. et al. Electromagnetic-guided placement of nasoduodenal feeding tubes versus endoscopic placement: a randomized, multicenter trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 110-118
• 13 Gao X, Zhang L, Zhao J. et al. Bedside electromagnetic-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes among critically Ill patients: A single-centre randomized controlled trial. J Crit Care 2018; 48: 216-221
• 14 Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898
• 15 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE. et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924-926
• 16 Gerritsen A, Duflou A, Ramali M. et al. Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of nasojejunal feeding tubes after pancreatoduodenectomy. Pancreas 2016; 45: 254-259
• 17 Kaffarnik MF, Lock JF, Wassilew G. et al. The use of bedside electromagnetically guided nasointestinal tube for jejunal feeding of critical ill surgical patients. Technol Heal Care 2013; 21: 1-8
• 18 Tsatsanidi KN, Pugaev AV, Krendal AP. et al. [Endoscopic placement of a jejunal tube and a method of conducting enteral feeding with special mixtures]. Vestn Khir Im I I Grek 1987; 139: 61-66
• 19 Paski SC, Dominitz JA. Endoscopic solutions to challenging enteral feeding problems. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2012; 28: 427-431