Rapid Placement of Transpyloric Feeding Tubes: A Comparison of pH-assisted and Standard Insertion Techniques in Children

Abstract

To compare transpyloric feeding tube placement using a pH-assisted placement technique versus a standard placement technique in pediatric patients requiring enteral nutrition. Critically ill children younger than 4 years were prospectively and randomly assigned to either a pH-assisted or a standard feeding tube placement group. Identical pH-assisted feeding tubes were used in both groups; however, feeding tubes in the standard group were not attached to a portable pH meter. Successful transpyloric placement was confirmed by radiography before beginning feedings. If placement was not successful, a second placement attempt was made after metoclopramide administration. Information regarding tube placement success, number of radiographs, time to initiation of feedings, and daily caloric intake was collected. A cost comparison between the two groups was performed. Thirty-four patients were enrolled in the pH-assisted group, and 34 were enrolled in the standard feeding tube group. Ninety-seven percent of patients in the pH-assisted group had successful placement after the first attempt, compared with 53% of patients in the standard group. The average time to successful placement of pH-assisted feeding tubes was 6 minutes. All patients in the pH-assisted group had successful placement after the second attempt, compared with 78% of patients in the standard group. A pH of greater than 5.6 accurately predicted transpyloric placement in 97% (33 of 34) of individuals in the pH-assisted group. Children in the pH-assisted group required significantly fewer radiographs than those in the standard group. Hospital costs were $114 per patient in the pH-assisted group and $135 per patient in the standard group. Our findings indicate that bedside transpyloric placement of pH-assisted feeding tubes can be accomplished rapidly and with a high success rate. This method is associated with decreased radiation exposure and economic savings when compared with a standard placement technique.