Is looped nasogastric tube feeding more effective than conventional nasogastric tube feeding for dysphagia in acute stroke?
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 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.
Beavan, Jessica R.
7e22268c-e021-4fd7-81c0-f6f9fafb3476
Conroy, Simon
1a33aa87-25a8-4083-8418-b7d73eb99110
Leonardi-Bee, Jo
746173bf-9dc1-456d-81b0-50e11a299dd8
Bowling, Tim
e6fbe4a1-8e48-4f27-b63f-f38c549a18ab
Gaynor, Catherine
e83af60a-a36c-4025-bfa0-fe9a19d04036
Gladman, John
89788999-01d4-4bd1-adb0-d96b68f2f270
Good, Dawn
16b48509-1f25-4d87-ad8e-e836cd41e7dc
Gorman, Peter
8154f88d-0720-4cbf-b578-2479e02b4dde
Harwood, Rowan
0e20cadd-5d43-48e0-9d3b-32c75d37073a
Riley, Jan
d2564090-9f70-4094-a728-0e18accbf2d3
Sach, Tracey
5c09256f-ebed-4d14-853a-181f6c92d6f2
Sunman, Wayne
3392328c-d0ea-4d17-85ca-b5b9030f64c3
Beavan, Jessica R.
7e22268c-e021-4fd7-81c0-f6f9fafb3476
Conroy, Simon
1a33aa87-25a8-4083-8418-b7d73eb99110
Leonardi-Bee, Jo
746173bf-9dc1-456d-81b0-50e11a299dd8
Bowling, Tim
e6fbe4a1-8e48-4f27-b63f-f38c549a18ab
Gaynor, Catherine
e83af60a-a36c-4025-bfa0-fe9a19d04036
Gladman, John
89788999-01d4-4bd1-adb0-d96b68f2f270
Good, Dawn
16b48509-1f25-4d87-ad8e-e836cd41e7dc
Gorman, Peter
8154f88d-0720-4cbf-b578-2479e02b4dde
Harwood, Rowan
0e20cadd-5d43-48e0-9d3b-32c75d37073a
Riley, Jan
d2564090-9f70-4094-a728-0e18accbf2d3
Sach, Tracey
5c09256f-ebed-4d14-853a-181f6c92d6f2
Sunman, Wayne
3392328c-d0ea-4d17-85ca-b5b9030f64c3
Beavan, Jessica R., Conroy, Simon, Leonardi-Bee, Jo, Bowling, Tim, Gaynor, Catherine, Gladman, John, Good, Dawn, Gorman, Peter, Harwood, Rowan, Riley, Jan, Sach, Tracey and Sunman, Wayne
(2007)
Is looped nasogastric tube feeding more effective than conventional nasogastric tube feeding for dysphagia in acute stroke?
Trials, 8, [19].
(doi:10.1186/1745-6215-8-19).
Abstract
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.
Text
1745-6215-8-19
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 3 August 2007
e-pub ahead of print date: 3 August 2007
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 478131
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/478131
ISSN: 1745-6215
PURE UUID: 024c0506-ff4e-4bc5-9693-810aef1592c1
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 22 Jun 2023 16:34
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:19
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Jessica R. Beavan
Author:
Simon Conroy
Author:
Jo Leonardi-Bee
Author:
Tim Bowling
Author:
Catherine Gaynor
Author:
John Gladman
Author:
Dawn Good
Author:
Peter Gorman
Author:
Rowan Harwood
Author:
Jan Riley
Author:
Tracey Sach
Author:
Wayne Sunman
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics