Nasal versus oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants.

Abstract

Enteral feeding tubes for preterm or low birth weight infants may be placed via either the nose or mouth. Nasal placement may compromise respiration. However, orally placed tubes may be more prone to displacement, local irritation, and vagal stimulation. To assess the available evidence from randomised controlled trials concerning the effects of nasally placed compared with orally placed feeding tubes on growth and development, and the incidence of adverse consequences in preterm or low birth weight infants. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 - April 2004), EMBASE (1988 - April 2004), and CINAHL (1982- April 2004), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the use of the nasal versus oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants. We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by each author, and analysis of data using relative risk, risk difference and mean difference. We found only one eligible trial. Forty-two infants participated in the study. This primary aim of the trial was to assess the effect of oral versus nasal placement of feeding tubes on the incidence of apnea and periodic breathing in preterm infants. The trial did not report data on the pre-specified primary outcomes for this review (growth and development). There are insufficient data available to inform practice. A large randomised controlled trial is required to determine if the use of nasally placed feeding tubes compared with orally placed feeding tubes improves growth and development, without increasing adverse consequences in preterm or low birth weight infants.