Aims To compare endoscopic-guided placement and eletromagnetic-guided placement of enteral feeding tubes in post-pyloric position based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods The study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Lilacs/Bireme databases from their dates of inception to October 2020.
Results A total of 536 patients from 4 RCTs were analyzed. There was statistical difference regarding time between physician’s order and initiation of tube feeding favoring EMGP (MD: -134.37 [-162.13, -106.61], p < 0.00001, I2= 35 %); and cost (MD: -126.63 [-134.05, -119.20], p < 0.00001, I2= 0 %); and no statistical difference regarding post-pyloric position (87 % vs 88 %; RD: -0.01 [-0.07, 0.05], p = 0.68, I2= 0 %), tube-related complications (33 % vs 25 %; RD: 0.07 [-0.01, 0.15], p = 0.07, I2= 0 %), patient-related complications (5 % vs 6 %; RD: -0.01 [-0.05, 0.02], p = 0.47, I2= 0 %), procedure time (MD: 0.81 [-7.2, 8.82], p = 0.84, I2= 99 %), time in the right position (MD: -0.89 [-3.37, 1.58], p = 0.48, I2= 93 %).
Conclusions EMGP and EGP presented lower cost and reduced time for accessing nutritional intake after treatment definition, and same rate of success, procedure time, complication rates, and time in the right position. EMGP may be recommended as an option for the placement of post-pyloric enteral feeding tubes.
Citation: Catache Mancini F, Pereira Funari M, de Moura DTH et al. eP167 POST-PYLORIC ENTERAL FEEDING TUBE PLACEMENT: ELETROMAGNETIC OR ENDOSCOPIC GUIDED? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS. Endoscopy 2021; 53: S151.
