Cargando…

Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Current evidence supporting the utility of electromagnetic (EM)-guided method as the preferred technique for post-pyloric feeding tube placement is limited. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of EM-guided versus endoscopic placement. METHODS: We searched several data...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wei, Yaping, Jin, Zheng, Zhu, Ying, Hu, Wei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7727211/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33303005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40560-020-00506-8
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Current evidence supporting the utility of electromagnetic (EM)-guided method as the preferred technique for post-pyloric feeding tube placement is limited. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of EM-guided versus endoscopic placement. METHODS: We searched several databases for all randomised controlled trials evaluating the EM-guided vs. endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes up to 28 July 2020. Primary outcome was procedure success rate. Secondary outcomes included reinsertion rate, number of attempts, placement-related complications, tube-related complications, insertion time, total procedure time, patient discomfort, recommendation scores, length of hospital stay, mortality, and total costs. RESULTS: Four trials involving 536 patients were qualified for the final analysis. There was no difference between the two groups in procedure success rate (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.91–1.03), reinsertion rate (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.59–1.20), number of attempts (WMD − 0.23; 95% CI − 0.99–0.53), placement-related complications (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.41–1.49), tube-related complications (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.82–1.44), total procedure time (WMD − 18.09 min; 95% CI − 38.66–2.47), length of hospital stay (WMD 1.57 days; 95% CI − 0.33–3.47), ICU mortality (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.50–1.29), in-hospital mortality (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.59–1.28), and total costs (SMD − 1.80; 95% CI − 3.96–0.36). The EM group was associated with longer insertion time (WMD 4.3 min; 95% CI 0.2–8.39), higher patient discomfort level (WMD 1.28; 95% CI 0.46–2.1), and higher recommendation scores (WMD 1.67; 95% CI 0.24–3.10). CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was found between the two groups in efficacy, safety, and costs. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020172427) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40560-020-00506-8.