ライフサイエンスコーパス: feeding tube

1 logic impairment, and presence of an enteral feeding tube.

2 or feeding through a transpylorically placed feeding tube.

3 hildren requiring placement of a nasoenteric feeding tube.

4 r determining postpyloric positioning of the feeding tube.

5 6.7-Fr (2.2-mm) fiberoptic scope through the feeding tube.

6 insufflated air could be aspirated from the feeding tube.

7 air confirms the transpyloric position of a feeding tube.

8 ch the bridle failed to prevent removal of a feeding tube.

9 ious vomiting and an ineffective gastrostomy feeding tube.

10 ing treatment, 17 patients (6.2%) required a feeding tube.

11 dication was taken orally or delivered via a feeding tube.

12 s ATP and metabolites to the forespore via a feeding tube.

13 d able to take liquid medication by mouth or feeding tube.

14 t was surgically cannulated with a pediatric feeding tube.

15 07-1.15) had a higher likelihood of having a feeding tube.

16 Only one patient (5%) required a feeding tube.

17 Fourteen patients received ZD1839 through a feeding tube.

18 ctor was attached to the proximal end of the feeding tube.

19 moving their properly positioned nasoenteric feeding tubes.

20 Nasal bridling of feeding tubes.

21 se bacterial biofilms inside the nasogastric feeding tubes.

22 tenting, and endoscopic placement of enteric feeding tubes.

23 impaired residents in US nursing homes have feeding tubes.

24 BMIZ increased more among children with feeding tubes (0.062/year), similar in both countries.

25 ation with fluids (5%), and complications of feeding tubes (5%).

26 le) were significantly more likely to have a feeding tube (adjusted risk ratio, 3.38), have spent tim

27 Although the use of feeding tubes among older individuals stirs considerable

28 Feeding tube and diet (Performance Status Scale for Head

29 e-based enteral diet or water via a duodenal feeding tube and subsequently injected with glycerol.

30 Protocols directed the placement of the feeding tube and the infusion of enteral nutrition and d

31 first attempt at placement of a transpyloric feeding tube and the initiation of feeding was significa

32 r hundred twenty-eight residents (59.7%) had feeding tubes and 215 (30.0%) had tracheostomies.

33 The bacterial flora of nasogastric feeding tubes and faecal samples were analysed for a low

34 Representative strains, recovered from both feeding tubes and faecal samples, were whole genome sequ

35 Enteral feeding tubes and parenteral nutrition should not be use

36 nificant difference in dependence on gastric feeding tubes and tracheostomies between treatment group

37 fusions, 36% were nourished via transpyloric feeding tubes, and 7% received total parenteral nutritio

38 diographs, fluoroscopic placement of enteral feeding tubes, and insertion of vena cava filters.

39 process, an essential channel, the so-called feeding tube apparatus, is thought to cross both membran

40 Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) feeding tubes are frequently placed in patients to provi

41 Enteral feeding tubes are often used in this situation, yet bene

42 These feeding tubes are placed either by clinical teams in the

43 Complications related to malpositioned feeding tubes are usually preventable.

44 An unweighted nasoenteral feeding tube attached to a three-way stopcock and a 60 m

45 Blind placement of a feeding tube can result in serious complications.

46 Feeding tubes can be placed by bedside, endoscopic, fluo

47 Endoscopically placed small bowel feeding tubes can safely deliver enteral nutrition to pa

48 se reports of complications of malpositioned feeding tubes continue to surface; most are due to inadv

49 EN was defined as insertion of a nasojejunal feeding tube, delivering at least 50% of nutritional nee

50 Studies on percutaneous jejunal feeding tubes demonstrate: high complication rate and sh

51 Late effects included feeding tube dependence in 17% of patients alive and fre

52 ractionation may increase rates of long-term feeding tube dependence.

53 Organ dysfunction was defined as feeding tube dependency, functioning tracheostomy, or so

54 Loco-regional control, speech quality and feeding-tube dependency were assessed during follow-up v

55 1) in all patients except four: one who was feeding-tube dependent and three who required soft diet.

56 PF group, three (3%) of 91 patients remained feeding-tube dependent, compared with eight (11%) of 71

57 At 12 months, five patients were completely feeding-tube dependent.

58 removed in 10 of 16 patients (63%) who were feeding tube-dependent; 6 patients (27%) continued to re

59 ould have required fluoroscopic placement of feeding tube due to failed blind technique had successfu

60 2.05; 95% CI, 1.04-4.04; P = .04) and longer feeding tube duration (median [range], 162 [6-1477] vs 1

61 In three subjects from group 1, the feeding tube entered the first part of the duodenum, whi

62 ition group, enteral nutrition was given via feeding tube for 14 days.

63 but this patient had had the same bridle and feeding tube for 170 consecutive days.

64 fety of impedance and temperature integrated feeding tubes for real-time placement guidance.

65 mouth [NPO]; partial oral intake [PO], with feeding tube [FT] supplement; full PO); and (2) exercise

66 ntranasally, intravenously, or orally or via feeding tube (gavage) and assayed virus shedding.

67 ity scoring system) and/or requirement for a feeding tube >or= 2 years after registration and/or pote

68 ated in the absence of dedicated gastrostomy feeding tubes; however, this approach has been associate

69 determine the internal length of nasogastric feeding tube in adults.

70 determine the internal length of nasogastric feeding tube in adults.

71 lized enteric structures clearly through the feeding tube in all subjects and patients.

72 e, 83.8 [7.5] years), 1312 (0.9%) received a feeding tube in hospital and 142 019 (99.1%) did not.

73 Nursing staff attempted to place a feeding tube in the desired position, and placement was

74 ates active bedside placement of postpyloric feeding tubes in critically ill adult patients.

75 Bridling of nasoenteric feeding tubes in critically ill patients is a low-morbid

76 revent the accidental removal of nasoenteric feeding tubes in critically ill patients.

77 d endoscopists to successfully place enteral feeding tubes in patients who previously required open p

78 Studies involving placement of nasoenteric feeding tubes include description of new methods for end

79 d bags, hemodialysis tubing, and nasogastric feeding tubes, increase body burden levels.

80 ng home residents who are tube fed had their feeding tube inserted during an acute care hospitalizati

81 Whether individuals received a feeding tube insertion (ie, gastrostomy, gastrostomy-jej

82 -level factors independently associated with feeding tube insertion rates, including bed size, owners

83 h advanced cognitive impairment, the rate of feeding tube insertion varied from 0 to 38.9 per 100 hos

84 y of hospitalized individuals with dementia, feeding tube insertion was not associated with improved

85 U use was associated with increased rates of feeding tube insertion, even after adjusting for patient

86 burdensome transition and the likelihood of feeding-tube insertion, hospitalization in an intensive

87 The mean rate of feeding tube insertions per 100 admissions was 7.9 in 20

88 stric insufflation allows rapid placement of feeding tubes into the small bowel with fewer attempts c

89 RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06-1.19), and the use of feeding tubes (IRR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64) and tracheo

90 eral nutrition with a nasogastric/orogastric feeding tube is essential in premature infants.

91 Early enteral feeding through a nasoenteric feeding tube is often used in patients with severe acute

92 The feeding tube is then anchored to the umbilical tape with

93 data and expert opinion suggest that use of feeding tubes is not beneficial for older persons with a

94 ith and without post-anastomosis jejunostomy feeding tube (JFT).

95 Days on feeding tube, length of mechanical ventilation and ICU/h

96 tes that bacterial flora within the neonatal feeding tubes may influence the bacterial colonisation o

97 lth Evaluation II score, presence of enteral feeding tube, mechanical ventilation, and recent history

98 Thirty-four percent of patients required a feeding tube (median, 10.5 weeks; none permanent).

99 Standard 12-Fr (4.0-mm) feeding tubes (n = 19) were placed.

100 dents with advanced cognitive impairment had feeding tubes (N = 63,101).

101 Test meals were fed through an intragastric feeding tube on Sprague-Dawley male rats after 18 h fast

102 were determined based on the position of the feeding tube on the radiograph.

103 al agents were given every 4 hours through a feeding tube or three or four times a day by mouth until

104 le of 20 adult MICU patients who were having feeding tubes placed (13 Salem sump tubes, 7 small-bore

105 Two patients from group 2 had feeding tubes placed on two separate occasions.

106 espectively by MTS score 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4): feeding tube placement (0%, 3.6% [2 of 56], 6.6% [10 of

107 ement is associated with less opioid use and feeding tube placement among adult patients with head an

108 Feeding tube placement by a dedicated team using electro

109 Transpyloric small intestine feeding tube placement can be difficult and tedious.

110 Poor reporting of feeding tube placement errors hinders the adoption of ef

111 Despite feeding tube placement in 35 patients (85%), the mean we

112 the potential for rapid, accurate, and safe feeding tube placement in patients requiring nutritional

113 Feeding tube placement into either duodenum or jejunum w

114 We determined the success rate of feeding tube placement into or beyond the second portion

115 thromycin significantly improved the rate of feeding tube placement into the duodenum or jejunum (ery

116 this review is to describe recent reports of feeding tube placement problems and to examine possible

117 tubated, using a blind, bedside transpyloric feeding tube placement protocol.

118 udy, we compared complications after bedside feeding tube placement using a blind technique in 2005 t

119 on of new methods for endoscopic nasoenteric feeding tube placement using a push technique with a sti

120 Median time to feeding tube placement was 10 mins (range 5 to 60).

121 Rate of feeding tube placement was based on a 20% sample of all

122 tors that were (or were not) associated with feeding tube placement were sometimes misaligned with be

123 ntensive procedures (mechanical ventilation, feeding tube placement, and cardiopulmonary resuscitatio

124 Although dementia is a contraindication for feeding tube placement, guidelines recommending against

125 Higher severity of OM was associated with feeding tube placement, hospitalization, opiate use, and

126 hod, less time and money will be expended in feeding tube placement, making capnometry an efficacious

127 ation, intravascular hemodynamic monitoring, feeding tube placement, tracheostomy, and vena cava filt

128 eport describes a novel technique of enteral feeding tube placement, using external magnetic guidance

129 This report describes a new technique of feeding tube placement.

130 ost-RT, with one patient requiring temporary feeding tube placement.

131 spice use were weakly or not associated with feeding tube placement.

132 fits of enteral nutrition are techniques for feeding tube placement.

133 entilation for 1 month with tracheostomy and feeding tube placement.

134 ometry is a safe method for verifying proper feeding tube placement.

135 leukopenia, anemia, and dermatitis and more feeding tube placements and hospitalizations.

136 rubin concentration is useful for predicting feeding tube position.

137 Of the 74 feeding tubes positioned in the small bowel, 13 feeding

138 s patients with early tracheostomy had fewer feeding tube procedures and higher odds of discharge hom

139 est-intensity care, many staff believed that feeding tubes prolonged life and had other clinical bene

140 autopositioning and regurgitation-resistant feeding tubes provide instruments for the early supply o

141 Within 1 year of discharge, 509 of 1018 feeding tube recipients (50.0%) died compared with 36 16

142 During hospitalization, feeding tube recipients stayed longer in hospital (mean

143 The feeding tubes remained in place 10 +/- 4 days and patien

144 patients, or when the risk of unintentional feeding tube removal is high.

145 monitored daily for prevalence and cause of feeding tube removal, percentage of goal calories receiv

146 including fall to the knees without injury, feeding tube removal, systolic blood pressure >200 mm Hg

147 Jejunostomy feeding tube shows a beneficial effect on the time to fu

148 lso be iatrogenic from intracatheter jejunal feeding tubes, stent perforation, sclerotherapy, or surg

149 Of the seven small-bore feeding tubes tested, all were successfully placed on in

150 correctly predicted the position of only one feeding tube, the 26th, which was in the stomach.

151 Based on visual landmarks, we advanced the feeding tube through the pylorus and into the duodenum i

152 pose that the channel is a gap junction-like feeding tube through which the mother cell nurtures the

153 aken more invasive routes using intragastric feeding tubes to infuse alcohol directly into the stomac

154 , changing mealtime position, and/or placing feeding tubes to prevent aspiration.

155 tics associated with a greater likelihood of feeding tube use included younger age, nonwhite race, ma

156 Feeding tube use is independently associated with both t

157 Additionally, feeding tube use was more likely among residents living

158 ates of xerostomia of grade 3 or greater and feeding tube use were 0.9% (95% CI, -0.2% to 1.9%) and 1

159 The 1- and 5-year rates of feeding tube use were 5 of 41 patients (12.2%) and 0 of

160 less education, lower household income, and feeding tube use were associated with significantly wors

161 Lower socioeconomic status, feeding tube use, and concurrent chemotherapy were assoc

162 sident factors independently associated with feeding tube use.

163 d enteric nutrition were able to discontinue feeding tube use; and 1 of 9 patients who required mecha

164 transfers (2.4 percentage-point reduction), feeding-tube use (1.2 percentage-point reduction), and I

165 fe and, for patients with advanced dementia, feeding-tube use and hospital transfers within the last

166 The feeding tube was advanced and a final chest roentgenogra

167 The distal end of the feeding tube was attached to the ETCO2 monitor.

168 The feeding tube was considered to be in the small bowel whe

169 The feeding tube was considered to be postpyloric when the t

170 After the feeding tube was inserted to 30-cm length and before the

171 standard 12-Fr, 114-cm flexible nasoenteral feeding tube was modified by inserting a small magnet in

172 After two unsuccessful attempts, the feeding tube was placed under fluoroscopy.

173 inuous electrocardiographic tracing from the feeding tube was then monitored throughout the tube inse

174 or was used in one fourth of patients, and a feeding tube was used in four tenths of patients.

175 The enteral feeding tube was withdrawn prematurely from 48.5% of pat

176 ce complications from small-bore nasogastric feeding tubes was effective.

177 es placed (13 Salem sump tubes, 7 small-bore feeding tubes) was then studied.

178 Tracheostomy and dependence on a gastric feeding tube were used as surrogate measures for treatme

179 ne critically ill patients from group 2, the feeding tubes were advanced to the distal duodenum or je

180 Feeding tubes were aspirated by applying suction with a

181 ding tubes positioned in the small bowel, 13 feeding tubes were in the duodenum and 61 were in the je

182 The feeding tubes were inserted by the oral (n = 8) or nasal

183 In the control group, feeding tubes were inserted through the nares and into t

184 Standard 10-Fr flexible nasoenteral feeding tubes were inserted under direct vision by the n

185 Seventy-five feeding tubes were inserted.

186 In the Phase 1 study (n = 16), feeding tubes were placed without any real-time guidance

187 Ninety-nine (74/75) percent of the feeding tubes were positioned in the small bowel.

188 ntake was achieved in 19 patients (95%), and feeding tubes were removed in 10 of 16 patients (63%) wh

189 All feeding tubes were successfully placed after two attempt

190 When gastric insufflation was used, 23 of 25 feeding tubes were successfully placed in the small bowe

191 ssociated with increased odds of receiving a feeding tube, while being female (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52

192 describe the clinical feasibility of a novel feeding tube with impedance and temperature sensors.

193 Approximately 1.2 million feeding tubes with stylets are placed annually in the US

194 A small-bore feeding tube, with stylet in place, was placed 5 cm thro