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
_version_ 1783621055109136384
author Wei, Yaping
Jin, Zheng
Zhu, Ying
Hu, Wei
author_facet Wei, Yaping
Jin, Zheng
Zhu, Ying
Hu, Wei
author_sort Wei, Yaping
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7727211
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77272112020-12-11 Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials Wei, Yaping Jin, Zheng Zhu, Ying Hu, Wei J Intensive Care Research 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. BioMed Central 2020-12-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7727211/ /pubmed/33303005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40560-020-00506-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Wei, Yaping
Jin, Zheng
Zhu, Ying
Hu, Wei
Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_full Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_fullStr Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_short Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_sort electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
topic Research
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT weiyaping electromagneticguidedversusendoscopicplacementofpostpyloricfeedingtubesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT jinzheng electromagneticguidedversusendoscopicplacementofpostpyloricfeedingtubesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT zhuying electromagneticguidedversusendoscopicplacementofpostpyloricfeedingtubesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT huwei electromagneticguidedversusendoscopicplacementofpostpyloricfeedingtubesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials