ライフサイエンスコーパス: nasogastric

1 , 40.9 [range, 12-85]) were evaluated (21 on nasogastric, 19 on percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy f

2 for early feeding included oral (4 studies), nasogastric (2 studies), nasojejunal (4 studies), and or

3 ited emetic responses in rhesus monkeys upon nasogastric administration and stimulated murine T-cell

4 clinical response following FMT via a single nasogastric administration our results suggest that FMT/

5 current PDAI >/=7) were treated with FMT via nasogastric administration.

6 leeding determined by endoscopic evaluation, nasogastric aspirate examination, or heme-positive coffe

7 l pH measurements were made from a sample of nasogastric aspirate, using pH sensitive paper.

8 tion of the upper gastrointestinal tract and nasogastric biopsy.

9 Twenty patients starting exclusive nasogastric enteral feeding were monitored for 14 d.

10 Group Gf received nasogastric enteral feeding.

11 Prolonged nasogastric feeding >2 wk (RR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.07, 3.25)

12 Continuous nasogastric feeding does not increase small bowel water

13 Bolus nasogastric feeding led to significant elevations in gas

14 emonstrate the effect of continuous or bolus nasogastric feeding on gastric emptying, small bowel wat

15 e method to determine the internal length of nasogastric feeding tube in adults.

16 methods to determine the internal length of nasogastric feeding tube in adults.

17 The bacterial flora of nasogastric feeding tubes and faecal samples were analys

18 tion to reduce complications from small-bore nasogastric feeding tubes was effective.

19 , e.g., blood bags, hemodialysis tubing, and nasogastric feeding tubes, increase body burden levels.

20 d to visualise bacterial biofilms inside the nasogastric feeding tubes.

21 percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or nasogastric feeding.

22 ealthy adult male participants who underwent nasogastric intubation before a baseline MRI scan, recei

23 unal disease and in pediatric patients where nasogastric intubation might be a problem.

24 i immunoglobulin A concentrations, prolonged nasogastric intubation, alcoholism, and acute hepatic fa

25 ol on examination (LR, 25; 95% CI, 4-174), a nasogastric lavage with blood or coffee grounds (LR, 9.6

26 Melena, nasogastric lavage with blood or coffee grounds, or seru

27 A nasogastric lavage with red blood (summary LR, 3.1; 95%

28 cal prediction score, which does not require nasogastric lavage, is very efficient for identifying pa

29 Nasogastric/nasoenteral tube feeding is often complicate

30 prescription and supplemental feeding via a nasogastric (NG) tube or gastrostomy may improve growth,

31 early nasojejunal nutrition and 71% for the nasogastric nutrition group (mean difference 1%, 95% con

32 stric residual volumes and already receiving nasogastric nutrition, early nasojejunal nutrition did n

33 ly nasojejunal nutrition and 89 to continued nasogastric nutrition.

34 frictional nasojejunal tube, or to continued nasogastric nutrition.

35 r heart defects require supplementation with nasogastric or gastrostomy tube at discharge from neonat

36 Supplemental nasogastric or gastrostomy tube feeding was carried out

37 on intragastric enteral tube feeding through nasogastric or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes

38 no significant differences between groups in nasogastric output; analgesia, antiemetic, or fluid requ

39 Gastric pH was monitored hourly via nasogastric pH probe.

40 , mean age=15.0 years, SD=1.8) and nocturnal nasogastric refeeding (N=52, mean age=14.8 years, SD=1.9

41 tablish the independent effects of nocturnal nasogastric refeeding after adjustment for potential con

42 Although controversy exists regarding nasogastric refeeding for patients with anorexia nervosa

43 ber of prior hospitalizations (the nocturnal nasogastric refeeding group had more than the oral refee

44 iod of time, patients treated with nocturnal nasogastric refeeding had a greater and more rapid weigh

45 ar regression models revealed that nocturnal nasogastric refeeding was a significant predictor of wei

46 Supplemental nocturnal nasogastric refeeding was more effective than oral refee

47 rd oral refeeding and supplemental nocturnal nasogastric refeeding.

48 tial nutrients or a control solution via the nasogastric route for up to 10 days.

49 Group 1 (n = 10) received nasogastric sucralfate, and group 2 patients received in

50 s and with follow-up clinical findings after nasogastric suction in 23 patients.

51 rostomy suction effectively replaced painful nasogastric suction in all eight patients.

52 In the past, treatment has consisted of nasogastric suction, intravenous fluids, correction of e

53 ts undergoing mechanical ventilation, with a nasogastric tonometer in situ, in whom enteral feeding w

54 unrelated donors, comparing colonoscopic and nasogastric tube (NGT) administration.

55 e usage of this equipment in the guidance of nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion.

56 and two or more vomiting episodes per day or nasogastric tube (NGT) who were previously treated with

57 surgery [odds ratio (OR) = 1], presence of a nasogastric tube (OR = 1.6), intraoperative blood transf

58 r more days or the need for reinsertion of a nasogastric tube after starting oral diet in the absence

59 casein and whey protein were collected by a nasogastric tube and protein degradation and peptide rel

60 ered the presence of bright red blood in the nasogastric tube as failure of SUP.

61 ium was administered orally or by means of a nasogastric tube as part of a routine protocol for CT ev

62 low-fat elemental-like diet administered by nasogastric tube during severe pancreatitis does not wor

63 used to determine the appropriate length of nasogastric tube for optimal placement in adults.

64 ted no difference between groups (60% in the nasogastric tube group and 80% in the colonoscopy group;

65 des, fecal infusion either rectally or via a nasogastric tube has become a viable option for the trea

66 itamin D3 or placebo was given orally or via nasogastric tube once at a dose of 540,000 IU followed b

67 ical leak, return to the operating room, and nasogastric tube placement (a surrogate for ileus).

68 acute hepatic failure, prolonged duration of nasogastric tube placement, alcoholism, and an increased

69 stics examined included age, sex, concurrent nasogastric tube presence, primary diagnosis, Acute Phys

70 ence in risk of anastomotic leak, pneumonia, nasogastric tube reinsertion, reoperation, readmission,

71 ze outcomes of anastomotic leaks, pneumonia, nasogastric tube reinsertion, reoperation, readmissions,

72 ly mobilization, incentive spirometry, early nasogastric tube removal, alvimopan usage, and judicious

73 A nasogastric tube should only be placed for symptomatic r

74 ed colectomy, treatment with any antibiotic, nasogastric tube suction, advanced age, and prior antibi

75 Subjects were equipped with a double-lumen nasogastric tube that migrated to the proximal jejunum.

76 In the PEG versus nasogastric tube trial, 321 patients were enrolled by 47

77 Improper placement of nasogastric tube used for feeding may lead to serious co

78 The nasogastric tube was clamped for 1 to 2 hrs after each a

79 In 13 patients, the tip of the nasogastric tube was lodged at the esophagogastric junct

80 rolled trial of its kind, fecal infusion via nasogastric tube was shown to be beneficial in treating

81 e who received enteral nutrition through the nasogastric tube were excluded from enrollment.

82 need to handle stool" and "receiving FMT by nasogastric tube" as most unappealing.

83 site, postoperative comorbidity, stoma, and nasogastric tube) with LRD patients having an adjusted 1

84 eadmission, ileus (defined as reinsertion of nasogastric tube), and intra-abdominal infection and ass

85 (two 40-mg doses on day 1, via orogastric or nasogastric tube, and 40 mg each day thereafter) or intr

86 rred during passage of the bougie dilator or nasogastric tube, and two occurred after surgery seconda

87 razole suspension was administered through a nasogastric tube, followed by 5 to 10 mL of tap water.

88 Donor fecal infusion via nasogastric tube, gastroscope or colonoscope in children

89 r 5 days or placebo was administered through nasogastric tube.

90 -sided CDH and 14 with right-sided CDH-had a nasogastric tube.

91 Any use of oxygen therapy, nasogastric-tube feeding, or ventilatory support was rec

92 ngth of stay, use of oxygen supplementation, nasogastric-tube feeding, ventilatory support, and relat

93 c gastrostomy tubes compared with those with nasogastric tubes (20.3% vs. 40.7%, respectively; p = .0

94 that selective, rather than routine, use of nasogastric tubes after abdominal surgery (2 meta-analys

95 They are more comfortable than nasogastric tubes and may be kept in place for several m

96 The positions of nasogastric tubes and umbilical venous catheters vary in

97 All nasogastric tubes in the 14 patients with right-sided CD

98 Converting nasogastric tubes to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

99 in 71 neonates with CDH to determine whether nasogastric tubes, umbilical venous catheters, and umbil

100 newborns, at the time of routine changing of nasogastric tubes.