Effect of nasogastric tube size on gastroesophageal reflux and microaspiration in intubated patients

被引:56
作者
Ferrer, M [1 ]
Bauer, TT [1 ]
Torres, A [1 ]
Hernández, C [1 ]
Piera, C [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
关键词
D O I
10.7326/0003-4819-130-12-199906150-00007
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Little evidence exists to support the theory that small-bore nasogastric tubes prevent gastroesophageal reflux and microaspiration in intubated patients. Objective: To determine whether gastroesophageal reflux and microaspiration in intubated patients can be reduced by the use of a small-bore nasogastric tube. Design: Randomized, two-period crossover trial. Setting: Respiratory intensive care unit of a university hospital. Patients: 17 patients intubated for more than 72 hours. Interventions: Radioactive technetium colloid was instilled in each patient's stomach. Patients were studied with two nasogastric tubes (one tube with a 6.0-mm external bore and one tube with a 2.85-mm external bore) in randomized order; measurements of radioactive counts with the alternate size of nasogastric tube were repeated 72 hours after original measurements were taken. Sequential samples of serum, gastric juice, and pharyngeal and tracheal secretions were obtained. Measurements: Comparison of the time course of radioactive counting in all samples (obtained during the use of each nasogastric tube size in each patient). Results: The mean radioactive count of pharyngeal aspirates (P = 0.004) was greater than the baseline count at all time points, as was the cumulative radioactive count of pharyngeal aspirates 17 hours after the first dose of technetium colloid was administered (P = 0.001); however, the count of tracheal aspirates was never greater than the count at baseline. No differences were found between tube types when the time course and cumulative counts of pharyngeal and tracheal samples were compared. Conclusion: Small-bore nasogastric tubes in intubated patients do not reduce gastroesophageal reflux or microaspiration.
引用
收藏
页码:991 / 994
页数:4
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1997, MMWR Recomm Rep, V46, P1
[2]   GASTRIC COLONIZATION AND PNEUMONIA IN INTUBATED CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS RECEIVING STRESS-ULCER PROPHYLAXIS - A RANDOMIZED, CONTROLLED TRIAL [J].
APTE, NM ;
KARNAD, DR ;
MEDHEKAR, TP ;
TILVE, GH ;
MORYE, S ;
BHAVE, GG .
CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 1992, 20 (05) :590-593
[3]   THE STOMACH IS NOT A SOURCE FOR COLONIZATION OF THE UPPER RESPIRATORY-TRACT AND PNEUMONIA IN ICU PATIENTS [J].
BONTEN, MJM ;
GAILLARD, CA ;
VANTIEL, FH ;
SMEETS, HGW ;
VANDERGEEST, S ;
STOBBERINGH, EE .
CHEST, 1994, 105 (03) :878-884
[4]   NOSOCOMIAL PNEUMONIA - A MULTIVARIATE-ANALYSIS OF RISK AND PROGNOSIS [J].
CELIS, R ;
TORRES, A ;
GATELL, JM ;
ALMELA, M ;
RODRIGUEZROISIN, R ;
AGUSTIVIDAL, A .
CHEST, 1988, 93 (02) :318-324
[5]   GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX WITH NASOGASTRIC TUBES - EFFECT OF NASOGASTRIC TUBE SIZE [J].
DOTSON, RG ;
ROBINSON, RG ;
PINGLETON, SK .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 1994, 149 (06) :1659-1662
[6]   NOSOCOMIAL PNEUMONIA IN INTUBATED PATIENTS GIVEN SUCRALFATE AS COMPARED WITH ANTACIDS OR HISTAMINE TYPE-2 BLOCKERS - THE ROLE OF GASTRIC COLONIZATION [J].
DRIKS, MR ;
CRAVEN, DE ;
CELLI, BR ;
MANNING, M ;
BURKE, RA ;
GARVIN, GM ;
KUNCHES, LM ;
FARBER, HW ;
WEDEL, SA ;
MCCABE, WR .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1987, 317 (22) :1376-1382
[7]  
DUMOULIN GC, 1982, LANCET, V1, P242
[8]   LARGE VOLUME GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX - A RATIONALE FOR RISK REDUCTION IN THE PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD [J].
HARDY, JF .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE, 1988, 35 (02) :162-173
[9]   GASTRIC COLONIZATION BY GRAM-NEGATIVE BACILLI AND NOSOCOMIAL PNEUMONIA IN THE INTENSIVE-CARE UNIT PATIENT - EVIDENCE FOR CAUSATION [J].
HEYLAND, D ;
MANDELL, LA .
CHEST, 1992, 101 (01) :187-193
[10]   GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX IN INTUBATED PATIENTS RECEIVING ENTERAL NUTRITION - EFFECT OF SUPINE AND SEMIRECUMBENT POSITIONS [J].
IBANEZ, J ;
PENAFIEL, A ;
RAURICH, JM ;
MARSE, P ;
JORDA, R ;
MATA, F .
JOURNAL OF PARENTERAL AND ENTERAL NUTRITION, 1992, 16 (05) :419-422