Cargando…
Is looped nasogastric tube feeding more effective than conventional nasogastric tube feeding for dysphagia in acute stroke?
BACKGROUND: Dysphagia occurs in up to 50% of patients admitted to hospital with acute strokes with up to 27% remaining by seven days. Up to 8% continue to have swallowing problems six months after their stroke with 1.7% still requiring enteral feeding. Nasogastric tubes (NGT) are the most commonly u...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2007
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1976319/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17683555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-19 |
_version_ | 1782135069847060480 |
---|---|
author | Beavan, Jessica R Conroy, Simon Leonardi-Bee, Jo Bowling, Tim Gaynor, Catherine Gladman, John Good, Dawn Gorman, Peter Harwood, Rowan Riley, Jan Sach, Tracey Sunman, Wayne |
author_facet | Beavan, Jessica R Conroy, Simon Leonardi-Bee, Jo Bowling, Tim Gaynor, Catherine Gladman, John Good, Dawn Gorman, Peter Harwood, Rowan Riley, Jan Sach, Tracey Sunman, Wayne |
author_sort | Beavan, Jessica R |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Dysphagia occurs in up to 50% of patients admitted to hospital with acute strokes with up to 27% remaining by seven days. Up to 8% continue to have swallowing problems six months after their stroke with 1.7% still requiring enteral feeding. Nasogastric tubes (NGT) are the most commonly used method for providing enteral nutrition in early stroke, however they are easily and frequently removed leading to inadequate nutrition, early PEG (Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy) insertion or abandoning of feeding attempts. Looped nasogastric tube feeding may improve the delivery of nutrition to such patients. METHODS: Three centre, two arm randomised controlled trial, with 50 participants in each arm comparing loop (the intervention) versus conventional nasogastric tube feeding. The primary outcome measure is proportion of intended feed delivered in the first 2 weeks. The study is designed to show a mean increase of feed delivery of 16% in the intervention group as compared with the control group, with 90% power at a 5% significance level. Secondary outcomes are treatment failures, mean volume of feed received, adverse events, cost-effectiveness, number of chest x-rays, number of nasogastric tubes and tolerability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN61174381 |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-1976319 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2007 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-19763192007-09-13 Is looped nasogastric tube feeding more effective than conventional nasogastric tube feeding for dysphagia in acute stroke? Beavan, Jessica R Conroy, Simon Leonardi-Bee, Jo Bowling, Tim Gaynor, Catherine Gladman, John Good, Dawn Gorman, Peter Harwood, Rowan Riley, Jan Sach, Tracey Sunman, Wayne Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Dysphagia occurs in up to 50% of patients admitted to hospital with acute strokes with up to 27% remaining by seven days. Up to 8% continue to have swallowing problems six months after their stroke with 1.7% still requiring enteral feeding. Nasogastric tubes (NGT) are the most commonly used method for providing enteral nutrition in early stroke, however they are easily and frequently removed leading to inadequate nutrition, early PEG (Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy) insertion or abandoning of feeding attempts. Looped nasogastric tube feeding may improve the delivery of nutrition to such patients. METHODS: Three centre, two arm randomised controlled trial, with 50 participants in each arm comparing loop (the intervention) versus conventional nasogastric tube feeding. The primary outcome measure is proportion of intended feed delivered in the first 2 weeks. The study is designed to show a mean increase of feed delivery of 16% in the intervention group as compared with the control group, with 90% power at a 5% significance level. Secondary outcomes are treatment failures, mean volume of feed received, adverse events, cost-effectiveness, number of chest x-rays, number of nasogastric tubes and tolerability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN61174381 BioMed Central 2007-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC1976319/ /pubmed/17683555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-19 Text en Copyright © 2007 Beavan et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Beavan, Jessica R Conroy, Simon Leonardi-Bee, Jo Bowling, Tim Gaynor, Catherine Gladman, John Good, Dawn Gorman, Peter Harwood, Rowan Riley, Jan Sach, Tracey Sunman, Wayne Is looped nasogastric tube feeding more effective than conventional nasogastric tube feeding for dysphagia in acute stroke? |
title | Is looped nasogastric tube feeding more effective than conventional nasogastric tube feeding for dysphagia in acute stroke? |
title_full | Is looped nasogastric tube feeding more effective than conventional nasogastric tube feeding for dysphagia in acute stroke? |
title_fullStr | Is looped nasogastric tube feeding more effective than conventional nasogastric tube feeding for dysphagia in acute stroke? |
title_full_unstemmed | Is looped nasogastric tube feeding more effective than conventional nasogastric tube feeding for dysphagia in acute stroke? |
title_short | Is looped nasogastric tube feeding more effective than conventional nasogastric tube feeding for dysphagia in acute stroke? |
title_sort | is looped nasogastric tube feeding more effective than conventional nasogastric tube feeding for dysphagia in acute stroke? |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1976319/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17683555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-19 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT beavanjessicar isloopednasogastrictubefeedingmoreeffectivethanconventionalnasogastrictubefeedingfordysphagiainacutestroke AT conroysimon isloopednasogastrictubefeedingmoreeffectivethanconventionalnasogastrictubefeedingfordysphagiainacutestroke AT leonardibeejo isloopednasogastrictubefeedingmoreeffectivethanconventionalnasogastrictubefeedingfordysphagiainacutestroke AT bowlingtim isloopednasogastrictubefeedingmoreeffectivethanconventionalnasogastrictubefeedingfordysphagiainacutestroke AT gaynorcatherine isloopednasogastrictubefeedingmoreeffectivethanconventionalnasogastrictubefeedingfordysphagiainacutestroke AT gladmanjohn isloopednasogastrictubefeedingmoreeffectivethanconventionalnasogastrictubefeedingfordysphagiainacutestroke AT gooddawn isloopednasogastrictubefeedingmoreeffectivethanconventionalnasogastrictubefeedingfordysphagiainacutestroke AT gormanpeter isloopednasogastrictubefeedingmoreeffectivethanconventionalnasogastrictubefeedingfordysphagiainacutestroke AT harwoodrowan isloopednasogastrictubefeedingmoreeffectivethanconventionalnasogastrictubefeedingfordysphagiainacutestroke AT rileyjan isloopednasogastrictubefeedingmoreeffectivethanconventionalnasogastrictubefeedingfordysphagiainacutestroke AT sachtracey isloopednasogastrictubefeedingmoreeffectivethanconventionalnasogastrictubefeedingfordysphagiainacutestroke AT sunmanwayne isloopednasogastrictubefeedingmoreeffectivethanconventionalnasogastrictubefeedingfordysphagiainacutestroke |