Randomized Trial to Compare Nasoduodenal Tube and Nasogastric Tube Feeding in Infants with Bronchiolitis on High-Flow Nasal Cannula

Abstract

Objectives In this article, we aimed to determine if there is a difference in length of respiratory support between nasoduodenal (NDT) and nasogastric tube (NGT) feedings in patients with bronchiolitis on high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC).

Methods A single-center nonblinded parallel randomized control trial at a tertiary care hospital was designed. Pediatric patients ≤ 12 months old with bronchiolitis, on HFNC, requiring nutrition via a feeding tube were eligible. Patients were randomized to NGT or NDT and stratified into low- and high-risk groups. Length of respiratory support was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, number of emesis events, maximum level of respiratory support, number of X-rays to confirm tube placement, number of attempts to place the tube by staff, adverse events during placement, instances of pediatric intensive care unit admission, and emergency room visits and hospital readmissions within 7 and 30 days after discharge.

Results Forty patients were randomized, 20 in each arm. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. We found no significant difference in length of respiratory support between the two groups (NGT 0.84 incidence rate ratio [0.58, 1.2], p = 0.34). None of the secondary outcomes showed significant differences. Each arm reported one adverse event: nasal trauma in the NGT group and pneumothorax in the NDT group.

Conclusion For infants with bronchiolitis on HFNC that need enteric tube feedings, we find no difference in duration of respiratory support or other clinically relevant outcomes for those with NGT or NDT. These results should be interpreted in the context of a limited sample size and an indirect primary outcome of length of respiratory support that may be influenced by other factors besides aspiration events.

Keywords

nasogastric feeding tube - nasoduodenal feeding tube - bronchiolitis - high-flow nasal cannula - aspiration - enteral feeding

Authors' Contributions

Each author participated sufficiently in the work and take public responsibility for the content.

R.L.P.-C. and A.G. conceptualized and designed the study, collected data, analyzed the data, drafted the initial manuscript, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

M.L.-P., V.M.G., H.S.H., G.H.D., M.S.E., S.G., and S.K. collected data, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript.

Note:

This study was conducted at the Children's Memorial Hermann, Houston, TX, United States.

Publication History

Received: 05 December 2021

Accepted: 01 March 2022

Article published online:
10 June 2022

• References

• 1 Dysart K, Miller TL, Wolfson MR, Shaffer TH. Research in high flow therapy: mechanisms of action. Respir Med 2009; 103 (10) 1400-1405
• 2 Lee JH, Rehder KJ, Williford L, Cheifetz IM, Turner DA. Use of high flow nasal cannula in critically ill infants, children, and adults: a critical review of the literature. Intensive Care Med 2013; 39 (02) 247-257
• 3 Sztrymf B, Messika J, Bertrand F. et al. Beneficial effects of humidified high flow nasal oxygen in critical care patients: a prospective pilot study. Intensive Care Med 2011; 37 (11) 1780-1786
• 4 Wilkinson DJ, Andersen CC, Smith K, Holberton J. Pharyngeal pressure with high-flow nasal cannulae in premature infants. J Perinatol 2008; 28 (01) 42-47
• 5 Sinha IP, McBride AKS, Smith R, Fernandes RM. CPAP and high-flow nasal cannula oxygen in bronchiolitis. Chest 2015; 148 (03) 810-823
• 6 Watson NF, Mystkowski SK. Aerophagia and gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients using continuous positive airway pressure: a preliminary observation. J Clin Sleep Med 2008; 4 (05) 434-438
• 7 Milési C, Baleine J, Matecki S. et al. Is treatment with a high flow nasal cannula effective in acute viral bronchiolitis? A physiologic study. Intensive Care Med 2013; 39 (06) 1088-1094
• 8 Pham TM, O'Malley L, Mayfield S, Martin S, Schibler A. The effect of high flow nasal cannula therapy on the work of breathing in infants with bronchiolitis. Pediatr Pulmonol 2015; 50 (07) 713-720
• 9 Weiler T, Kamerkar A, Hotz J, Ross PA, Newth CJL, Khemani RG. The relationship between high flow nasal cannula flow rate and effort of breathing in children. J Pediatr 2017; 189: 66-71.e3
• 10 Iyer NP, Mhanna MJ. Association between high-flow nasal cannula and end-expiratory esophageal pressures in premature infants. Respir Care 2016; 61 (03) 285-290
• 11 Delorme M, Bouchard PA, Simon M, Simard S, Lellouche F. Effects of high-flow nasal cannula on the work of breathing in patients recovering from acute respiratory failure. Crit Care Med 2017; 45 (12) 1981-1988
• 12 Slain KN, Martinez-Schlurmann N, Shein SL, Stormorken A. Nutrition and high-flow nasal cannula respiratory support in children with bronchiolitis. Hosp Pediatr 2017; 7 (05) 256-262
• 13 Shadman KA, Kelly MM, Edmonson MB. et al. Feeding during high-flow nasal cannula for bronchiolitis: associations with time to discharge. J Hosp Med 2019; 14: E43-E48
• 14 Sochet AA, McGee JA, October TW. Oral nutrition in children with bronchiolitis on high-flow nasal cannula is well tolerated. Hosp Pediatr 2017; 7 (05) 249-255
• 15 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
• 16 Caillie MV, Powell GK. Nasoduodenal versus nasogastric feeding in the very low birthweight infant. Pediatrics 1975; 56 (06) 1065-1072
• 17 Pereira GR, Lemons JA. Controlled study of transpyloric and intermittent gavage feeding in the small preterm infant. Pediatrics 1981; 67 (01) 68-72
• 18 Hernandez E, Khoshoo V, Thoppil D, Edell D, Ross G. Aspiration: a factor in rapidly deteriorating bronchiolitis in previously healthy infants?. Pediatr Pulmonol 2002; 33 (01) 30-31
• 19 Marderstein EL, Simmons RL, Ochoa JB. Patient safety: effect of institutional protocols on adverse events related to feeding tube placement in the critically ill. J Am Coll Surg 2004; 199 (01) 39-47 , discussion 47–50
• 20 Kolbitsch C, Pomaroli A, Lorenz I, Gassner M, Luger TJ. Pneumothorax following nasogastric feeding tube insertion in a tracheostomized patient after bilateral lung transplantation. Intensive Care Med 1997; 23 (04) 440-442
• 21 Sparks DA, Chase DM, Coughlin LM, Perry E. Pulmonary complications of 9931 narrow-bore nasoenteric tubes during blind placement: a critical review. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2011; 35 (05) 625-629
• 22 de Aguilar-Nascimento JE, Kudsk KA. Clinical costs of feeding tube placement. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2007; 31 (04) 269-273
• 23 Gilbertson HR, Rogers EJ, Ukoumunne OC. Determination of a practical pH cutoff level for reliable confirmation of nasogastric tube placement. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2011; 35 (04) 540-544
• 24 Atalay YO, Polat AV, Ozkan EO, Tomak L, Aygun C, Tobias JD. Bedside ultrasonography for the confirmation of gastric tube placement in the neonate. Saudi J Anaesth 2019; 13 (01) 23-27