An externally validated guide to anatomical interpretation using a direct-vision ('IRIS') feeding tube.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Most of the 11.5 million feeding tubes placed annually in Europe and the USA are placed 'blind'. This carries a 1.6% risk that these tubes will enter the lung and 0.5% cause pneumothorax or pneumonia regardless of whether misplacement is identified prior to feeding. Tube placement by direct vision may reduce the risk of respiratory or oesophageal misplacement. This study externally validated whether an 'operator guide' would enable novice operators to differentiate the respiratory and alimentary tracts. METHODS: One IRIS tube was placed in each of 40 patients. Novice operators interpreted anatomical position using the built-in tube camera. Interpretation was checked from recorded images by consultant gastroenterologists and end-of-procedure checks using pH or X-ray checked by Radiologists and a consultant intensivist. RESULTS: The 40 patients were a median of 68y (IQR: 56-75), 70% male, mostly medical (65%), conscious (67.5%) and 70% had no artificial airway. Three tubes were removed due to failed placement. In the remaining 37 placements, novice operators identified the airway in 17 (45.9%) and airway + respiratory tract in 19 (51.4%), but redirected all these tubes into the oesophagus. By using direct vision to reduce the proportion of tubes near the airway or in respiratory tract from 0.514 to 0, operator discrimination between the respiratory and alimentary tracts was highly significant (0.514 vs 0: p < 0.0001, power >99.9% when significance = 0.05). In addition, organ boundaries (respiratory tract vs oesophagus, oesophagus vs stomach, stomach vs intestine) were identified in 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Novice operators, trained using the guide, identified all respiratory misplacements and accurately interpreted IRIS tube position. Guide-based training could enable widespread use of direct vision as a means to prevent tube-related complications.

Validation of image interpretation for direct vision-guided feeding tube placement.

BACKGROUND: Unguided (blind) tube placement commonly results in lung (1.6%) and oesophageal (5%) misplacement, which can lead to pneumothorax, aspiration pneumonia, death, feeding delays, and increased cost. Use of real-time direct vision may reduce risk. We validated the accuracy of a guide to train new operators in the use of direct vision-guided tube placement. METHODS: Using direct vision, operators matched anatomy viewed to anatomical markers in a preliminary operator guide. We examined how accurately the guide predicted tube position, specifically whether respiratory and gastrointestinal placement could be differentiated. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients each had one tube placement. Placement was aborted in 6% because of inability to enter or move beyond the oesophagus. In 15 of 20 placements in which the glottic opening was identified, the tube was maneuvered to avoid entry into the respiratory tract. Of 96 tubes that reached the oesophagus, 17 had entered the trachea; all were withdrawn pre-carina. One or more specific characteristics identified each organ, differentiating the trachea-oesophagus (P < 0.0001), oesophagus-stomach, and stomach-intestine in 100%. End-of-procedure tube position was ascertained by pH ≤4.0 (gastric) of aspirated fluid and/or x-ray (gastric or intestinal). In patients with a trauma risk (13%), it was avoided by identification that the tube remained within the nasal, oesophageal, or gastric lumen. CONCLUSION: Operators successfully matched anatomy seen by direct vision to images and descriptions of anatomy in the "operator guide." This validated that the operator guide accurately facilitates interpretation of tube position and enabled avoidance of lung trauma and oesophageal misplacement.

Safety of blind versus guided feeding tube placement: Misplacement and pneumothorax risk.

Most intensive care unit patients require a feeding tube, but misplacement risk is high due to the presence of artificial airways and because unconsciousness reduces clinical warnings. Predominantly, tubes are placed 'blindly', where position is not known throughout placement. The result is that 1.6% enter the lung, 0.5% cause pneumothorax and potentially 5% are left in the oesophagus. Guided placement, by identifying tube position in real time, may prevent these problems, but undetected misplacements still occur. We review the safety of guided methods of confirming tube position, including rates of pneumothorax, in the context of current unguided methods. During blind tube placement, tube position can only be tracked intermittently. Excepting X-ray and ultra-sound, most methods of checking position are simple. Conversely, guided tube placement can track tube position from the nose to small intestine (IRIS®), or oesophagus to jejunum (Cortrak™, ENvue®). However, this requires expertise. Overall, guided placement is associated with lower rates of pneumothorax. Unfortunately, for Cortrak, low-use centres have higher rates of undetected misplacement compared with blind placement whereas Cortrak use in high-use centres had lower risk compared with blind placement and low use centres. Because guided placement requires high-level expertise manufacturer training packages have been developed but currently appear insufficient. Specifically, Cortrak's package is less accurate in determining tube position compared to the 'gastrointestinal flexure' system. Validation of an evidence-based guide for IRIS placement is underway. Recommendations are made regarding the training of new operators, including minimum numbers of placements required to achieve expertise.

Integrated real-time imaging system, 'IRIS', Kangaroo feeding tube: a guide to placement and image interpretation.

BACKGROUND: Lung complications occur in 0.5% of the millions of blind tube placements. This represents a major health burden. Use of a Kangaroo feeding tubes with an 'integrated real-time imaging system' ('IRIS' tube) may pre-empt such complications. We aimed to produce a preliminary operator guide to IRIS tube placement and interpretation of position. METHODS: In a single centre, IRIS tubes were prospectively placed in intensive care unit patients. Characteristics of tube placement and visualised anatomy were recorded in each organ to produce a guide. RESULTS: Of 45 patients having one tube placement, 3 were aborted due to refusal (n=1) or inability to enter the oesophagus (n=2). Of 43 tubes placed beyond 30 cm, 12 (28%) initially entered the respiratory tract but all were withdrawn before reaching the main carina. We identified anatomical markers for the nasal or oral cavity (97.8%), respiratory tract (100%), oesophagus (97.6%), stomach (100%) and intestine (100%). Organ differentiation was possible in 100%: trachea-oesophagus, oesophagus-stomach and stomach-intestine. Gastric tube position was confirmed by aspiration of fluid with a pH <4.0 and/ or X-ray. Trauma was avoided in 13.6% by identifying that the tube remained in the nasal lumen in the presence of a base of skull fracture (n=3) and in the stomach in the presence of recently bleeding polyps or mucosa (n=3). A systematic guide was produced from records of tube placement and interpretation of anatomical images. CONCLUSION: By permitting real-time confirmation of tube position, direct vision may reduce risk of lung complications. The preliminary operator guide requires validation in larger studies.

Evaluation of a brief parenting discussion group for parents of young children.

OBJECTIVE: Although behavioral parenting programs are effective at treating child behavioral problems, a significant number of parents experiencing these problems do not receive help, and briefer, more cost-effective parenting interventions are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a brief parenting discussion group. METHOD: Sixty-seven parents were randomly assigned to either an intervention or waitlist control condition. Parents in the intervention condition took part in a 2-hour discussion group in which they were taught positive parenting strategies to prevent and manage their child's disobedience, and they received 2 follow-up telephone calls after the discussion group. RESULTS: Results showed that after intervention, there were reductions in child behavior problems and use of dysfunctional parenting and improvements in parental self-efficacy and the parenting experience for parents. These effects were maintained at 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The results are promising because they show that a brief intervention can be minimally sufficient to improve child and parent outcomes for parents experiencing high levels of child behavior problems.