Naso-intestinal versus gastric tube for enteral nutrition in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI:10.1186/s13643-024-02743-6
Chuanjin Liu, Junxun Jiang, Zunjia Wen, Tao You
{"title":"Naso-intestinal versus gastric tube for enteral nutrition in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Chuanjin Liu, Junxun Jiang, Zunjia Wen, Tao You","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02743-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A systematic appraisal of the comparative efficacy and safety profiles of naso-intestinal tube versus gastric tube feeding in the context of enteral nutrition for mechanically ventilated (MV) patients is imperative. Such an evaluation is essential to inform clinical practice, ensuring that the chosen method of nutritional support is both optimal and safe for this patient population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We executed an exhaustive search across PubMed et al. databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that scrutinize the role of naso-intestinal and gastric tubes for mechanically ventilated (MV) patients up to May 30, 2024. The process of study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction was conducted independently by two researchers. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our meta-analysis included 8 RCTs, published between 1992 and 2018, encompassing a total of 676 MV patients. The results indicated that naso-intestinal tube feeding, compared to gastric tube feeding, was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) [Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.52, 0.92)] and gastric retention (RR = 0.11, 95% CI (0.04, 0.28)). No statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of aspiration (RR = 0.93, 95% CI (0.35, 2.50)) vomiting (RR = 0.70, 95% CI (0.23, 2.08)), abdominal distension (RR = 0.87, 95% CI (0.29, 2.63)), or diarrhea (RR = 1.10, 95% CI (0.77, 1.55)).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current evidence indicates that naso-intestinal tube feeding is efficacious in lowering the incidence of VAP and gastric retention among MV patients, without a corresponding escalation in the risk of adverse events, including aspiration, vomiting, abdominal distension, and diarrhea. These insights significantly augment the existing corpus of knowledge pertaining to the optimization of enteral nutrition strategies for patients on mechanical ventilation.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"13"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11734493/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02743-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A systematic appraisal of the comparative efficacy and safety profiles of naso-intestinal tube versus gastric tube feeding in the context of enteral nutrition for mechanically ventilated (MV) patients is imperative. Such an evaluation is essential to inform clinical practice, ensuring that the chosen method of nutritional support is both optimal and safe for this patient population.

Methods: We executed an exhaustive search across PubMed et al. databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that scrutinize the role of naso-intestinal and gastric tubes for mechanically ventilated (MV) patients up to May 30, 2024. The process of study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction was conducted independently by two researchers. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.

Results: Our meta-analysis included 8 RCTs, published between 1992 and 2018, encompassing a total of 676 MV patients. The results indicated that naso-intestinal tube feeding, compared to gastric tube feeding, was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) [Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.52, 0.92)] and gastric retention (RR = 0.11, 95% CI (0.04, 0.28)). No statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of aspiration (RR = 0.93, 95% CI (0.35, 2.50)) vomiting (RR = 0.70, 95% CI (0.23, 2.08)), abdominal distension (RR = 0.87, 95% CI (0.29, 2.63)), or diarrhea (RR = 1.10, 95% CI (0.77, 1.55)).

Conclusions: The current evidence indicates that naso-intestinal tube feeding is efficacious in lowering the incidence of VAP and gastric retention among MV patients, without a corresponding escalation in the risk of adverse events, including aspiration, vomiting, abdominal distension, and diarrhea. These insights significantly augment the existing corpus of knowledge pertaining to the optimization of enteral nutrition strategies for patients on mechanical ventilation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机械通气患者使用鼻肠管和胃管进行肠内营养:系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:在机械通气(MV)患者肠内营养的背景下,系统评价鼻肠管与胃管喂养的疗效和安全性是必要的。这样的评估对于告知临床实践至关重要,确保所选择的营养支持方法对该患者群体既最佳又安全。方法:我们对PubMed等数据库进行了详尽的检索,以确定截至2024年5月30日的随机对照试验(rct),这些试验仔细检查了鼻肠胃管在机械通气(MV)患者中的作用。研究选择、质量评估和数据提取的过程由两位研究者独立进行。采用RevMan 5.3软件进行meta分析。结果:我们的荟萃分析纳入了1992年至2018年间发表的8项随机对照试验,共纳入676例MV患者。结果显示,与胃管喂养相比,鼻肠管喂养可显著降低呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)的发生率[风险比(RR) = 0.69, 95%可信区间(CI)(0.52, 0.92)]和胃潴留(RR = 0.11, 95% CI(0.04, 0.28)]。两组患者误吸(RR = 0.93, 95% CI(0.35, 2.50))、呕吐(RR = 0.70, 95% CI(0.23, 2.08))、腹胀(RR = 0.87, 95% CI(0.29, 2.63))、腹泻(RR = 1.10, 95% CI(0.77, 1.55))的发生率无统计学差异。结论:目前的证据表明,鼻肠管喂养在降低MV患者VAP和胃潴留发生率方面是有效的,没有相应的不良事件风险增加,包括误吸、呕吐、腹胀和腹泻。这些见解显著增加了现有的关于机械通气患者肠内营养策略优化的知识库。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids for stroke and traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultra-processed foods and risk of all-cause mortality: an updated systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Using virtual patients to enhance empathy in medical students: a scoping review protocol. Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocol. Self-care interventions among women with gestational diabetes mellitus in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1