Transnasal endoscopy for the placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes: does the working length of the endoscope matter?

BackgroundTransnasal endoscopy with a small-caliber endoscope has been shown to be helpful for the placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in patients who are critically ill. Success rates were limited by the short working length of the small-caliber endoscopes.ObjectiveTo compare the success rate of a 133-cm-long, small-caliber, prototype videoendoscope with a standard 92-cm-long, small-caliber, fiberoptic endoscope for the transnasal placement of feeding tubes.DesignRandomized controlled study.SettingUniversity Hospital of Zurich, Switzerland.PatientsPatients who were critically ill were randomly assigned to transnasal feeding tube placement with the standard 92-cm-long, small-caliber, fiberoptic endoscope, or with a new 133-cm-long, small-caliber, prototype videoendoscope. Patient characteristics, procedure time, technical difficulties, patient tolerance, and radiologic tube position were assessed.Main Outcome MeasurementsSuccess rates of endoscopic placement of enteral feeding tubes.ResultsA total of 157 patients were analyzed in 2 groups. The 2 groups were similar with regard to patient characteristics, body length, technical difficulty, and patient tolerance. The 133-cm-long instrument was superior with respect to successful placement of the nasoenteral feeding tube (93.6% vs 74.4%, P = .0008). Patient tolerance, procedure times, and overall technical difficulty were the same in both treatment groups, whereas passage through the duodenum was more difficult with the 133-cm-long instrument (P < .0001).LimitationsIn rare cases, the randomization list could not be followed correctly.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that placement of a nasoenteral feeding tube with a 133-cm-long, small-caliber videoendoscope is feasible, safe, and distinctly more successful than with a 92-cm-long, small-caliber standard instrument.