Smith Fiona, McFarland Agi, Elen Marie
Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Feb 19;2(2):CD011196. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011196.pub2.
The insertion of an enterogastric tube (oral or nasal) (EGT) is the passage of a tube through the nose or mouth into the stomach. In a paediatric setting, EGTs are used within clinical practice for a variety of reasons including enteral feeding, decompression, post-gastrointestinal surgery, patient assessment, and drug and fluid administration. Confirmation of EGT placement is required immediately following insertion and thereafter prior to each use, including after the administration of enteral feed or medication. Although the majority of these tubes are inserted and used without incident, there is an established risk that the tube can be misplaced into the lungs or move out of the stomach. This misplacement can result in significant harm or mortality. As such, diagnostic tests are required to assess the placement of EGTs and to rule out the target condition of potential airway placement. Various methods are used to determine EGT position, including bedside assessment and observing for signs of respiratory distress. Air insufflated (blown) through the EGT in combination with epigastric auscultation (listening to the stomach with a stethoscope) for whooshing sounds has also been used. Although these tests are widely recognised, they are not officially recommended for use as standalone measures of EGT placement. Current American and UK guidelines recommend a combination of aspirate testing and radiological confirmation of EGT placement in infant, child, and adult populations. In adults, objective measures of pH of the aspirate may be used, with a pH reading between 1 and 5.5 considered a reliable method for excluding placement in the pulmonary tree. However, testing for acidity of aspirate obtained from the EGT does not accurately differentiate between bronchial and gastric secretions in paediatric practice. Additionally, there may be difficulty in obtaining aspirate from the EGT especially within a paediatric population due to the size of the EGT and the smaller volumes of gastric secretions produced. Radiography or direct visualisation are the only reliable methods of confirming EGT placement (valid at time of X-ray and point of insertion, respectively) in this population and are thus considered the reference standard. However, within the paediatric population, there is a known difficulty with obtaining radiographs that visualise the entire course of the EGT and a recognised risk in radiation exposure in the paediatric setting. The measurement of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in exhaled air is a recognised and mandatory standard of care for confirming and monitoring endotracheal tube or airway placement under general anaesthesia. The measurement of CO₂ can be achieved in one of two ways: capnography or colorimetric capnometry. Capnography is the measurement of inspired and expired CO₂ using the absorption of infrared light by CO₂ molecules to estimate CO₂ concentrations. These measurements are then displayed against time to give a continual graphical trace. Colorimetric capnometry involves the detection of CO₂ using an adapted form of pH filter paper impregnated with a dye that changes colour from purple to yellow in the presence of CO₂; however, this method does not provide a continual reading. The monitoring of CO₂ emanating from an EGT inadvertently passed into the airways would utilise this phenomenon in a reverse manner, confirming tracheobronchial placement rather than the intended stomach.
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of capnometry and capnography for detecting respiratory EGT placement in children compared to the reference standard.
We searched the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Medion database on 4 September 2023. There were no limits on language or publication status.
We included studies that compared the diagnostic accuracy of CO₂ detection (assessed by either capnometry or capnography) for EGT placement in the respiratory tract with the reference standard, and those that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of CO₂ detection for differentiating between respiratory and gastrointestinal tube placement, in children. We included both prospective and retrospective cross-sectional studies. We included diagnostic case-control studies where patients acted as their own controls whereby the same EGT and end placement was tested both via index and reference test concurrently.
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality using QUADAS-2. There were no disagreements. Where data were available, we reported test accuracy as sensitivity and specificity. Calculation of both sensitivity and specificity with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was only possible for one study. We calculated specificity with a 95% CI for all included studies. Due to the low number of included studies, we were not able to perform meta-analysis or conduct our planned investigations of heterogeneity.
We identified three studies for inclusion in the review, all of which provided data on test accuracy of capnography or capnometry against the radiological test standard. Across the three studies, there were a total of 121 participants and 139 EGT insertions with low event data for false-positive (n = 6 insertions) and true-positive (n = 3 insertions) scenarios. No event data were available for false-negative scenarios. Overall, the body of evidence has a low risk of bias, although further clarity regarding patient enrolment (whether consecutive or random) and details about the conduct of the index and reference tests would have enhanced the overall quality of the evidence base included in the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently not enough evidence to suggest that CO₂ detection for inadvertent respiratory tract placement of EGTs in children should be added to current checking procedures. Future studies should aim for larger samples across a range of ages and evaluate different types of CO₂ monitoring (capnography and capnometry), using a range of EGT sizes in participants who are both spontaneously breathing or who require mechanical ventilation with or without impairments of conscious level.
插入鼻胃管(经口或经鼻)是将一根管子经鼻或口插入胃内的操作。在儿科环境中,鼻胃管在临床实践中有多种用途,包括肠内喂养、减压、胃肠道手术后护理、患者评估以及药物和液体给药。鼻胃管插入后以及每次使用前(包括给予肠内营养或药物后)都需要确认其位置。尽管大多数此类管子的插入和使用并无意外,但确实存在管子误插入肺部或移出胃外的风险。这种误置可能导致严重伤害甚至死亡。因此,需要进行诊断测试以评估鼻胃管的位置,并排除潜在气道放置的目标情况。确定鼻胃管位置的方法有多种,包括床边评估和观察呼吸窘迫迹象。通过鼻胃管吹气并结合上腹部听诊(用听诊器听胃部)以检测气过水声也被采用过。尽管这些测试广为人知,但并未被官方推荐作为确认鼻胃管位置的独立方法。美国和英国目前的指南建议在婴儿、儿童和成人中采用抽吸物测试和鼻胃管位置的放射学确认相结合的方法。在成人中,可以使用抽吸物pH值的客观测量方法,pH值在1至5.5之间被认为是排除管子置于肺部的可靠方法。然而,在儿科实践中,检测从鼻胃管获得的抽吸物的酸度并不能准确区分支气管和胃分泌物。此外,由于鼻胃管的尺寸以及儿科患者胃分泌物量较少,从鼻胃管获取抽吸物可能存在困难。在该人群中,放射照相或直接可视化是确认鼻胃管位置的唯一可靠方法(分别在X射线检查时和插入时有效),因此被视为参考标准。然而,在儿科人群中,获取能显示鼻胃管全程的X射线片存在已知困难,并且在儿科环境中存在辐射暴露风险。测量呼出气体中的二氧化碳(CO₂)是确认和监测全身麻醉下气管内导管或气道位置的公认且强制性的护理标准。测量CO₂可以通过两种方式之一实现:二氧化碳描记法或比色二氧化碳测定法。二氧化碳描记法是利用CO₂分子对红外光的吸收来测量吸入和呼出的CO₂,以估计CO₂浓度。然后将这些测量值随时间显示,给出连续的图形轨迹。比色二氧化碳测定法涉及使用一种经过改良的pH试纸检测CO₂,该试纸浸渍有一种染料,在有CO₂存在时会从紫色变为黄色;然而,这种方法不能提供连续读数。监测无意中插入气道的鼻胃管排出的CO₂将以相反的方式利用这一现象,确认气管支气管放置而非预期的胃内放置。
与参考标准相比,确定二氧化碳测定法和二氧化碳描记法检测儿童呼吸道鼻胃管放置的诊断准确性。
我们于2023年9月4日检索了Cochrane诊断试验准确性研究注册库、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL和Medion数据库。对语言或出版状态没有限制。
我们纳入了将CO₂检测(通过二氧化碳测定法或二氧化碳描记法评估)用于鼻胃管在呼吸道放置的诊断准确性与参考标准进行比较的研究,以及评估CO₂检测用于区分呼吸道和胃肠道管放置的诊断准确性的儿童研究。我们纳入了前瞻性和回顾性横断面研究。我们纳入了诊断性病例对照研究,其中患者作为自身对照,通过索引测试和参考测试同时对同一鼻胃管及其最终位置进行测试。
两位综述作者独立提取数据,并使用QUADAS - 2评估方法学质量。没有分歧。在数据可用的情况下,我们将测试准确性报告为敏感性和特异性。只有一项研究能够计算敏感性和特异性及其95%置信区间(CI)。我们为所有纳入研究计算了特异性及其95% CI。由于纳入研究数量较少,我们无法进行荟萃分析或开展我们计划的异质性调查。
我们确定了三项研究纳入综述,所有这些研究都提供了二氧化碳描记法或二氧化碳测定法相对于放射学测试标准的测试准确性数据。在这三项研究中,共有121名参与者和139次鼻胃管插入,假阳性(n = 6次插入)和真阳性(n = 3次插入)情况的事件数据较少。没有假阴性情况的事件数据。总体而言,证据体的偏倚风险较低,尽管关于患者纳入(是否连续或随机)以及索引测试和参考测试实施细节的进一步明确将提高综述中纳入的证据基础的整体质量。
目前没有足够的证据表明应将检测儿童鼻胃管意外置于呼吸道的CO₂检测添加到当前的检查程序中。未来的研究应针对更广泛年龄范围的更大样本,并评估不同类型的CO₂监测(二氧化碳描记法和二氧化碳测定法),在自主呼吸或需要机械通气(无论意识水平是否受损)的参与者中使用一系列鼻胃管尺寸。