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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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