Nasogastric tube insertion using conventional versus bubble technique for its confirmation in anesthetized patients: a prospective randomized study
- PMID: 33766685
- PMCID: PMC10544108
- DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2021.01.011
Nasogastric tube insertion using conventional versus bubble technique for its confirmation in anesthetized patients: a prospective randomized study
Abstract
Background: Nasogastric tube insertion and confirmation of its position can be difficult in the anesthetized patient. The purpose of the present study was to compare the bubble technique with the conventional method for confirmation of nasogastric tube placement in these patients.
Methods: Two hundred sixty adult patients, aged between 20...70 years, posted for surgeries requiring general anesthesia, tracheal intubation, and a nasogastric tube were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized into 2 groups: Group B (Bubble group) and Group C (Control group). In Group C, a conventional technique using a lubricated nasogastric tube was positioned through the nostril with head remained neutral. In Group B, 2% lidocaine jelly was added to the proximal end to form a single bubble. The correct placement of the nasogastric tube in the stomach was confirmed by fluoroscopy by an independent observer intraoperatively.
Results: The duration of nasogastric tube insertion was 57.2..13.3seconds in Group B and 59.8..11.9seconds in Group C (p=0.111). The confirmation rate of the bubble technique was 76.8% (95% CI: 68.7...83.3), which was significantly better than the conventional method where the confirmation rate was 59.7% (95% CI 50.9...67.9), p<0.001. When compared to fluoroscopy, bubble technique was found to have a sensitivity of 92.3% (95% CI: 85.6...96.1) with specificity of 81.0% (95% CI: 60.0...92.3), positive predictive value of 96.0% (95% CI: 90.2...98.4), and a moderate negative predictive value of 68.0% (95% CI: 48.4...82.8).
Conclusions: The bubble technique of nasogastric tube insertion has a higher confirmation rate in comparison to the conventional technique.
Trial registry number: Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2018/09/015864).
Keywords: Fluoroscopy; General anesthesia; Nasogastric intubation.
Copyright © 2021 Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia. Published by Elsevier España S.L.U. All rights reserved.
Figures
Similar articles
-
[Comparison of different methods of nasogastric tube insertion in anesthetized and intubated patients].Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2017 Nov-Dec;67(6):578-583. doi: 10.1016/j.bjan.2017.04.020. Epub 2017 May 22. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2017. PMID: 28546013 Clinical Trial. Portuguese.
-
Comparing insertion characteristics on nasogastric tube placement by using GlideScope™ visualization vs. MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anaesthetized and intubated patients.Braz J Anesthesiol. 2016 Jul-Aug;66(4):363-8. doi: 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.11.013. Epub 2015 Oct 20. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2016. PMID: 27343785 Clinical Trial.
-
Esophageal guidewire-assisted nasogastric tube insertion in anesthetized and intubated patients: a prospective randomized controlled study.Anesth Analg. 2012 Feb;114(2):343-8. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31823be0a4. Epub 2011 Nov 21. Anesth Analg. 2012. PMID: 22104075 Clinical Trial.
-
Nasogastric tube insertion in anaesthetized patients: a comprehensive review.Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2017;49(1):57-65. doi: 10.5603/AIT.a2017.0001. Epub 2017 Jan 13. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2017. PMID: 28084614 Review.
-
Nasogastric versus nasojejunal tube feeding for severe acute pancreatitis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Mar 26;3(3):CD010582. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010582.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. PMID: 32216139 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Let bubble solve the trouble.J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2023 Oct-Dec;39(4):655-656. doi: 10.4103/joacp.joacp_79_22. Epub 2023 Dec 20. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2023. PMID: 38269164 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources