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 Nasogastric administration of radiotracer (24) Na(+) and

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

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

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

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

9 tion of the upper gastrointestinal tract and nasogastric biopsy.

10 is not feasible, enteral nutrition by either nasogastric/duodenal or nasojejunal tube should be initi

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

12 Group Gf received nasogastric enteral feeding.

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

14 The impact of nasogastric feeding (NGF) on malnutrition in cirrhosis r

15 Continuous nasogastric feeding does not increase small bowel water

16 Bolus nasogastric feeding led to significant elevations in gas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or nasogastric feeding.

25 Nasogastric intubation (NGI) is usually challenging in p

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

33 Nasogastric/nasoenteral tube feeding is often complicate

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

35 Placement of nasogastric (NG) tubes is a common procedure for patient

36 Blind insertion of nasogastric (NG) tubes is performed for several reasons:

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

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

39 ly nasojejunal nutrition and 89 to continued nasogastric nutrition.

40 frictional nasojejunal tube, or to continued nasogastric nutrition.

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

42 Supplemental nasogastric or gastrostomy tube feeding was carried out

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

44 gned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily fo

45 Enteral nutrition with a nasogastric/orogastric feeding tube is essential in prem

46 ltered mental status, 35% dysphagia, and 27% nasogastric/orogastric tubes.

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

48 Gastric pH was monitored hourly via nasogastric pH probe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

55 Supplemental nocturnal nasogastric refeeding was more effective than oral refee

56 rd oral refeeding and supplemental nocturnal nasogastric refeeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

65 ent (ED) visit/hospitalization rate, time to nasogastric tube (NGT) removal, rate of discharge with a

66 ective intra-abdominal surgeries requiring a nasogastric tube (NGT) was conducted.

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

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

69 rievable coil-shaped LA-DAAS compatible with nasogastric tube administration and the capacity to enca

70 receive 80 mg of simvastatin (42 donors) via nasogastric tube after declaration of brain death and up

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

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

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

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

75 Sertraline was administered orally or via nasogastric tube at a dose of 400 mg/day for 2 weeks, fo

76 to be independent predictors of a prolonged nasogastric tube dependence.

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

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

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

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

81 e allocated to receive 33 mL (or 25 mL via a nasogastric tube if a participant's swallowing was impai

82 Misplacement of the nasogastric tube in the respiratory tract could cause se

83 Nasogastric tube insertion rates were higher after TORS

84 Preplanned outcome measures included nasogastric tube insertion rates within 4 weeks after su

85 onsidered an effective approach to determine nasogastric tube location, there is a paucity of up-to-d

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

87 perforations due to foreign body insertion (nasogastric tube or pulling through of percutaneous endo

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

89 d in differentiating between respiratory and nasogastric tube placement for critically ill adult pati

90 en inadvertent airway intubation and correct nasogastric tube placement in any adult care setting.

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

92 city for the detection of inadvertent airway nasogastric tube placements in critically ill adults.

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

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

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

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

97 A nasogastric tube should only be placed for symptomatic r

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

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

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

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

102 Thus, nasogastric tube verification is necessary for optimal p

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

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

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

106 A nasogastric tube was used for oral rehydration in 126 of

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

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

109 st 30 min after a meal every 8 h (or 6 h via nasogastric tube) over 24 h for 28 days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

116 d mucosal damage, either orally or through a nasogastric tube.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

126 etric capnometry or capnography in detecting nasogastric tubes located in the airway and differentiat

127 Converting nasogastric tubes to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

128 evelop recommendations concerning the use of nasogastric tubes, Foley catheters, and central lines.

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

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