Dataset Information

The application of lidocaine to alleviate the discomfort of nasogastric tube insertion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Nasogastric (NG) tube insertion is a common procedure in the clinical setting that causes much discomfort and pain for the patient. Pain control is often suboptimal, as many NG tube insertions are performed without any pain-relieving supplements. The aim of this study was to summarize and critically evaluate the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect and adverse effects of lidocaine agents in reducing pain and discomfort associated with NG tube insertion.

Methods

Databases from the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Airiti Library, PerioPath Index to Taiwan Periodical Literature, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) were searched from inception to April 2017. RCTs focusing on lidocaine before NG tube insertion were appraised. The primary outcome was the visual analog scale (VAS) score. The modified Jadad scale was used for quality assessment. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and odds ratio (OR) for binary outcomes were assessed by a random effects model. Heterogeneity was determined by using the Cochran Q test and I statistics. Publication bias was analyzed by using a funnel plot analysis.

Results

Ten RCTs enrolling 734 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Eight of the 10 RCTs reporting VAS scores had sufficient quantitative data to be pooled through meta-analysis. Results revealed a significant reduction in VAS score, with a MD of -26.05 and a CI of -28.21 to -23.89 with moderate heterogeneity (P?ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that applying lidocaine before NG tube insertion can alleviate pain and discomfort by 26% without increasing nasal bleeding or vomiting.

SUBMITTER: Lor YC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5805430 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The application of lidocaine to alleviate the discomfort of nasogastric tube insertion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lor You-Chen YC Shih Pei-Ching PC Chen Hsin-Hao HH Liu Shu-Jung SJ Chao Hsingchu-Chu HC Hwang Lee-Ching LC Hsu Yen-Fen YF Yeh Tzu-Lin TL

Medicine 20180201 5

<h4>Background</h4>Nasogastric (NG) tube insertion is a common procedure in the clinical setting that causes much discomfort and pain for the patient. Pain control is often suboptimal, as many NG tube insertions are performed without any pain-relieving supplements. The aim of this study was to summarize and critically evaluate the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect and adverse effects of lidocaine agents in reducing pain and discomfort associated with NG tube inserti ...[more]

PMID: 29384858

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEarly oral intake (EOI: initiated within 1 day) and early nasogastric tube removal (ENR: removed ≤2 days) post-esophagectomy is controversial and subject to significant variation.AimOur aim is to provide the most up-to-date evidence from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing both topics.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and Embase (1946-06/2019) for RCTs that investigated the effect of EOI and/or ENR post-esophagectomy with gastric conduit for reconstruction. Our main outcomes of interest were anastomotic leak, aspiration pneumonia, mortality, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Pooled mean differences (MD) and risk ratios (RR) estimates were obtained using a DerSimonian random effects model.ResultsTwo reviewers screened 613 abstracts and identified 6 RCTs eligible for inclusion; 2 regarding EOI and 4 for ENR. For EOI (2 studies, n = 389), was not associated with differences in risk of: anastomotic leak (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.407, 2.500; I2 : 0%), aspiration pneumonia (RR: 1.018; 95% CI: 0.407, 2.500), mortality (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.020, 50.0). The LOS was significantly shorter in the EOI group: LOS (MD: -2.509; 95% CI: -3.489, -1.529; I2 : 90.44%). For ENR (4 studies, n = 295), ENR (removed at POD0-2 vs. 5-8 days) was not associated with differences in risk of: anastomotic leak (RR: 1.11; 95% CI 0.336, 3.697; I2 : 25.75%) and pneumonia group (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.336, 3.697; I2 : 25.75%), mortality (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.328, 2.308; I2 : 0%)or LOS (MD: 1.618; 95% CI: -1.447, 4.683; I2 : 73.03%).ConclusionsOur analysis showed that EOI as well as ENR post-esophagectomy do not significantly increase the risk of anastomotic leak, pneumonia, and mortality. The LOS was significantly shorter in the EOI group, and there was no significant difference in the ENR group. A paucity of RCTs has evaluated this question, highlighting the need for further high-quality evidence to address these vital aspects to post-esophagectomy care.Systematic review registrationCRD42019138600.

Project description:BackgroundAdolescents with severe restrictive eating disorders often require enteral feeding to provide lifesaving treatment. Nasogastric feeding (NG) is a method of enteral nutrition often used in inpatient settings to treat medical instability, to supplement poor oral intake or to increase nutritional intake. This systematic review sets out to describe current practice of NG in young people with eating disorders.MethodsA systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted by searching AMED, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases from 2000 to 2020. Inclusion terms were: enteral feeding by nasogastric tube, under 18 years, eating disorders, and primary research. Exclusion terms: psychiatric disorders other than eating disorders; non-primary research; no outcomes specific to NG feeding and participants over 18 years. Titles and abstracts were screened by all authors before reviewing full length articles. Quality assessment, including risk of bias, was conducted by all authors.ResultsTwenty-nine studies met the full criteria. 86% of studies were deemed high or medium risk of bias due to the type of study: 34.4% retrospective cohort and 10.3% RCT; 17.2% were qualitative. Studies identified 1) a wide range of refeeding regimes depending on country, settings, and the reason for initiation; 2) standard practice is to introduce Nasogastric feeds (NG) if medically unstable or oral intake alone is inadequate; 3) NG may enable greater initial weight gain due to increased caloric intake; 4) there are 3 main types of feeding regime: continuous, nocturnal and bolus; 5) complications included nasal irritation, epistaxis, electrolyte disturbance, distress and tube removal; 6) where NG is routinely implemented to increase total calorie intake, length of stay in hospital may be reduced; however where NG is implemented in correlation to severity of symptoms, it may be increased; 7) both medical and psychiatric wards most commonly report using NG in addition to oral intake.ConclusionsNG feeding is a safe and efficacious method of increasing total calorie intake by either supplementing oral intake or continuously. There are currently no direct comparisons between continuous, nocturnal or bolus regimes, which may be used to direct future treatment for YP with ED.

Dataset Information

The application of lidocaine to alleviate the discomfort of nasogastric tube insertion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Publications

The application of lidocaine to alleviate the discomfort of nasogastric tube insertion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets