Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan.
Oku Medical Clinic, Osaka, Japan.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jul 25;7(7):CD012083. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012083.pub3.
Gastric tubes are commonly used for the administration of drugs and tube feeding for people who are unable to swallow. Feeding via a tube misplaced in the trachea can result in severe pneumonia. Therefore, the confirmation of tube placement in the stomach after tube insertion is important. Recent studies have reported that ultrasonography provides good diagnostic accuracy estimates in the confirmation of appropriate tube placement. Hence, ultrasound could provide a promising alternative to X-rays in the confirmation of tube placement, especially in settings where X-ray facilities are unavailable or difficult to access.
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound alone or in combination with other methods for gastric tube placement confirmation in children and adults.
This systematic review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Library (2021, Issue 6), MEDLINE (to April 2023), Embase (to April 2023), five other databases (to July 2021), and reference lists of articles, and contacted study authors.
We included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of naso- and orogastric tube placement confirmed by ultrasound visualization using X-ray visualization as the reference standard. We included cross-sectional studies and case-control studies. We excluded case series or case reports. We excluded studies if X-ray visualization was not the reference standard or if the tube being placed was a gastrostomy or enteric tube.
Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality and extracted data from each of the included studies. We contacted the authors of the included studies to obtain missing data. There were sparse data for specificity. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of only sensitivity using a univariate random-effects logistic regression model to combine data from studies that used the same method and echo window.
We identified 12 new studies in addition to 10 studies included in the earlier version of this review, totalling 1939 participants and 1944 tube insertions. Overall, we judged the risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear. No study was at low risk of bias or low concern for applicability in every QUADAS-2 domain. There were limited data (152 participants) for misplacement detection (specificity) due to the low incidence of misplacement. The summary sensitivity of ultrasound on neck and abdomen echo windows were 0.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 0.98; moderate-certainty evidence) for air injection and 0.98 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00; moderate-certainty evidence) for saline injection. The summary sensitivity of ultrasound on abdomen echo window was 0.96 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.00; very low-certainty evidence) for air injection and 0.97 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.99; moderate-certainty evidence) for procedures without injection. The certainty of evidence for specificity across all methods was very low due to the very small sample size. For settings where X-ray was not readily available and participants underwent gastric tube insertion for drainage (8 studies, 552 participants), sensitivity estimates of ultrasound in combination with other confirmatory tests ranged from 0.86 to 0.98 and specificity estimates of 1.00 with wide CIs. For studies of ultrasound alone (9 studies, 782 participants), sensitivity estimates ranged from 0.77 to 0.98 and specificity estimates were 1.00 with wide CIs or not estimable due to no occurrence of misplacement.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Of 22 studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of gastric tube placement, few studies had a low risk of bias. Based on limited evidence, ultrasound does not have sufficient accuracy as a single test to confirm gastric tube placement. However, in settings where X-ray is not readily available, ultrasound may be useful to detect misplaced gastric tubes. Larger studies are needed to determine the possibility of adverse events when ultrasound is used to confirm tube placement.
胃管常用于无法吞咽的人群给药和管饲。将管插入气管会导致严重的肺炎。因此,在插入管后确认管在胃中非常重要。最近的研究报告称,超声检查在确认适当的管置位方面提供了良好的诊断准确性估计。因此,超声检查可能是 X 射线确认管置位的一种有前途的替代方法,尤其是在 X 射线设施不可用或难以获得的情况下。
评估超声单独或与其他方法联合用于确认儿童和成人胃管置位的诊断准确性。
本系统评价是之前发表的 Cochrane 综述的更新。此次更新,我们检索了 Cochrane 图书馆(2021 年第 6 期)、MEDLINE(至 2023 年 4 月)、Embase(至 2023 年 4 月)、另外 5 个数据库(至 2021 年 7 月)和文章的参考文献,并联系了研究作者。
我们纳入了使用 X 射线可视化作为参考标准评估经鼻或经口胃管置位的超声可视化诊断准确性的研究。我们纳入了横断面研究和病例对照研究。我们排除了 X 射线可视化不是参考标准或正在放置的管是胃造口管或肠内管的研究。
两位综述作者独立评估了每个纳入研究的方法学质量,并提取了数据。我们联系了纳入研究的作者以获取缺失的数据。由于特异性数据很少,因此我们仅对敏感性进行了荟萃分析,使用单变量随机效应逻辑回归模型对使用相同方法和回波窗口的研究进行了数据合并。
除了本综述早期版本中纳入的 10 项研究外,我们还确定了 12 项新研究,共纳入了 1939 名参与者和 1944 次管插入。总体而言,我们判断纳入研究的偏倚风险较低或不明确。没有研究在 QUADAS-2 所有领域都具有低偏倚风险或低适用性担忧。由于误置发生率较低,因此特异性(误置检测)的汇总数据有限(152 名参与者)。空气注射时超声在颈部和腹部回波窗的汇总敏感性为 0.96(95%置信区间 0.92 至 0.98;中等确定性证据),生理盐水注射时为 0.98(95%置信区间 0.83 至 1.00;中等确定性证据)。空气注射时超声在腹部回波窗的汇总敏感性为 0.96(95%置信区间 0.65 至 1.00;极低确定性证据),无注射程序时为 0.97(95%置信区间 0.95 至 0.99;中等确定性证据)。由于样本量非常小,所有方法的特异性确定性证据均为极低。在 X 射线不易获得且参与者因引流而接受胃管插入的情况下(8 项研究,552 名参与者),超声与其他确认性测试联合使用的敏感性估计值范围为 0.86 至 0.98,特异性估计值为 1.00,置信区间较宽。对于仅使用超声的研究(9 项研究,782 名参与者),敏感性估计值范围为 0.77 至 0.98,特异性估计值为 1.00,置信区间较宽或由于未发生误置而无法估计。
在评估胃管置位诊断准确性的 22 项研究中,很少有研究具有低偏倚风险。基于有限的证据,超声作为单一测试确认胃管置位的准确性不足。然而,在 X 射线不易获得的情况下,超声可能有助于检测误置的胃管。需要更大规模的研究来确定在使用超声确认管置位时是否存在不良事件的可能性。