Abstract:Background: For people who are malnourished and unable to consume food by mouth, nasoenteral feeding tubes are commonly used for the administration of liquid food and drugs. Postpyloric placement is when the tip of the feeding tube is placed beyond the pylorus, in the small intestine. Endoscopic-guided placement of postpyloric feeding tubes is the most common approach. Usually, an endoscopist and two or more medical professionals perform this procedure using a guidewire technique. The position of the tube is then confirmed with fluoroscopy or radiography, which requires moving people undergoing the procedure to the radiology department. Alternatively, electromagnetic-guided placement of postpyloric nasoenteral feeding tubes can be performed by a single trained nurse, at the bedside and with less equipment than endoscopic-guided placement. Hence, electromagnetic-guided placement may represent a promising alternative to endoscopic-guided placement, especially in settings where endoscopy and radiographic facilities are unavailable or difficult to access. Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of electromagnetic-guided placement of postpyloric nasoenteral feeding tubes compared to endoscopic-guided placement. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and OpenGrey until February 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature. We contacted the study authors for missing data. Selection criteria: We included randomised trials comparing electromagnetic-guided placement with endoscopic-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes. We excluded prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and case series or case reports. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and extracted data from the included trials. The primary outcomes were technical success in insertion and aspiration pneumonitis. The secondary outcomes were the time for postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes, direct healthcare costs, and adverse events. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We evaluated the certainty of evidence based on the GRADE approach. Main results: We identified four randomised controlled trials with 541 participants which met our inclusion criteria. All trials had methodological limitations, and lack of blinding of participants and investigators was a major source of bias. We had 'some concerns' for the overall risk of bias in all trials. Electromagnetic-guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes may result in little to no difference in technical success in insertion compared to endoscopic-guided placement (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; I2 = 81%; low-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement may result in a difference in the proportion of participants with aspiration pneumonitis compared to endoscopic-guided placement, but these results are unclear (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.18; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement may result in little to no difference in the time for postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes compared to endoscopic-guided placement (MD 4.06 minutes, 95% CI -0.47 to 8.59; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement likely reduces direct healthcare costs compared to endoscopic-guided placement (MD -127.69 US dollars, 95% CI -135.71 to -119.67; moderate-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement likely results in little to no difference in adverse events compared with endoscopic-guided placement (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; moderate-certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions: We found low-certainty evidence that electromagnetic-guided placement at the bedside results in little to no difference in technical success in insertion and aspiration pneumonitis, compared to endoscopic-guided placement. The heterogeneity of the healthcare professionals who performed the procedures and the small sample sizes limited our confidence in the evidence. Future research should be based on large studies with well-defined endpoints to potentially elucidate the differences between these two procedures.

Blind versus endoscopy‐guided postpyloric feeding tube placement in adults with ischemic stroke: A retrospective cohort study

Blind bedside postpyloric placement of spiral tube as rescue therapy in critically ill patients: a prospective, tricentric, observational study

Endoscopic Nasojejunal Feeding Tube Placement in Patients with Severe Hepatopancreatobiliary Diseases: a Retrospective Study of 184 Patients.

A prospective randomized trial of transnasal ileus tube vs nasogastric tube for adhesive small bowel obstruction.

Postpyloric enteral feeding costs for patients with severe head injury: blind placement, endoscopy, and PEG/J versus TPN

Timing of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in post-stroke patients does not impact mortality, complications, or outcomes

Safety of blind versus guided feeding tube placement: Misplacement and pneumothorax risk

Comparison of Postpyloric Tube Feeding and Gastric Tube Feeding in Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Meta-Analysis

The learning curve in blind bedside postpyloric placement of spiral tubes: data from a multicentre, prospective observational study

Multivariate analysis of factors associated with the successful prediction of initial blind placement of a nasointestinal tube in the stomach based on X-ray imaging: a retrospective, single-center study

Bedside sonographic-guided versus blind nasoenteric feeding tube placement in critically ill patients

Safety and Efficacy of Electromagnetic-Guided Bedside Placement of Nasoenteral Feeding Tubes versus Standard Placement

New model for predicting surgical feeding tube placement in patients with an acute stroke event

Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic-guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes

S1579 Timing of PEG Tube Placement in Stroke Patients with Dysphagia: A Multi-Center Retrospective Cohort Analysis Using the TriNetX Database

A Two-Stage Bedside Intubation Method to Improve Success Rate of Post-pyloric Placement of Spiral Nasoenteric Tubes in Critically Ill Patients: A Multi-Center, Prospective Study

Bedside post-pyloric tube placement using direct visualisation in mechanically ventilated patients: A single centre case series

A prospective comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding in patients with acute dysphagic stroke

Video-assisted placement of enteral feeding tubes using the Integrated Real-Time Imaging System (IRIS)-technology in critically ill patients

Outcomes of stroke patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Effect of Intermittent Oro-Esophageal Tube Feeding in Bulbar Palsy After Ischemic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Study