Feasibility of Self-Propelling Nasojejunal Feeding Tube in Patients With Acute Pancreatitis

Abstract

Background & Aims: To assess the success rate of a self-propelling nasojejunal feeding tube in patients with acute pancreatitis. Methods: All patients admitted for acute pancreatitis were included. A self-propelling nasojejunal feeding tube was introduced into the stomach, and gastrointestinal motility was stimulated using metoclopramide. If the tube failed to advance to the ligament of Treitz, a nasojejunal tube was placed endoscopically. Results: A total of 108 patients, 94 with necrotizing pancreatitis (Balthazar D/E) and 14 with nonnecrotizing pancreatitis (Balthazar B/C), were referred for artificial nutrition. In 11 cases, ileus persisted and parenteral nutrition was initiated. Among the remaining 97 patients, 5 refused tube placement. The self-propelling feeding tube was inserted in 92 patients with successful migration to the ligament of Treitz in 61% (n = 56) and failure in 39% (n = 36). Of the 36 patients with an initial failed placement, endoscopic placement of a nasojejunal tube was successful 80% of the time (29 patients). The success rate of a nasojejunal self-propelling feeding tube placement correlated directly with the severity of the acute pancreatitis (92% in B/C vs 61% in D vs 48% in E; P < .05). Conclusions: Use of a self-propelling nasojejunal tube is a simple technique that can be successfully performed in the majority of patients with acute pancreatitis. The utility of this procedure in the most severe cases of acute pancreatitis continues to pose a challenge.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Marik PE, Zaloga GP. Meta-analysis of parenteral nutrition versus enteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis. BMJ. 2004;328:1407 -1410.

McClave SA, Ritchie CS. Artificial nutrition in pancreatic disease: what lessons have we learned from the literature? Clin Nutr. 2000;19:1 -6.

Windsor AC, Kanwar S, Li AG, et al. Compared with parenteral nutrition, enteral feeding attenuates the acute phase response and improves disease severity in acute pancreatitis. Gut.1998 ;42:431 -435.

Eatock FC, Chong P, Menezes N, et al. A randomized study of early nasogastric versus nasojejunal feeding in severe acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol.2005 ;100:432 -439.

Kumar A, Singh N, Prakash S, Saraya A, Joshi YK. Early enteral nutrition in severe acute pancreatitis: a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing nasojejunal and nasogastric routes. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;40:431 -434.

McClave SA, Greene LM, Snider HL, et al. Comparison of the safety of early enteral vs parenteral nutrition in mild acute pancreatitis. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr.1997 ;21:14 -20.

Jeppsson B, Tranberg KG, Bengmark S. Technical developments. A new self-propelling nasoenteric feeding tube. Clin Nutr.1992 ;11: 373-375.

Berger MM, Bollmann MD, Revelly JP, et al. Progression rate of self-propelled feeding tubes in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28:1768 -1774.

Karsenti D, Viguier J, Bourlier P, et al. Enteral nutrition during acute pancreatitis: feasibility study of a self-propelling spiral distal end jejunal tube. Gastroenterol Clin Biol.2003 ;27:614 -617.

10.

Meier R, Ockenga J, Pertkiewicz M, Pap A, Milinic N, Macfie J; German Society for Nutritional Medicine, Löser C, Keim V; European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. ESPEN guidelines on enteral nutrition: pancreas. Clin Nutr.2006 ;25:275 -284.