Cited by 52Dysphagia Assessment and ManagementClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyAirway Management and Intubation Techniques

The nasal loop provides an alternative to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in high-risk dysphagic stroke patients

Anderson, Mark R, O’Connor, Marion, Mayer, Peter, O’Mahony, Denis, Woodward, Jeremy, Kane, Kate·2004·Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Introduction In the management of dysphagic stroke patients, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies (PEGs) are frequently sited early due to the failure of nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding, with NGTs becoming displaced in over 58% of cases. PEG insertion is a procedure with significant mortality and morbidity. We adapted a novel technique of securing NGTs (a nasal loop) which is non-invasive, allows successful NG feeding and may avoid the need for PEG placement. Aims To show that nasal loops result in improved delivery of enteral nutrition. To compare the outcome and complication rate of nasal loop fed patients with those undergoing PEG feeding. Methods A 6 month prospective audit of dysphagic stroke patients who were referred for PEG. All patients who were referred with failed NG feeding within 28 days of presentation were offered a nasal loop. Patients who were 28 days post-stroke had a PEG placed if appropriate. The daily feed intake was monitored before and after nasal loop placement. Complication rates and patient outcomes were documented at 2 week and 3 month follow-up. Results Nasal loop group: 14 patients had a nasal loop for a median of 15 days. The median daily feed provided was 0% before nasal loop and 100% after. Four patients went on to recover normal swallowing, 4 patients died and 6 later proceeded to PEG. PEG group: Seven patients proceeded direct to PEG, 1 died and 6 were alive and PEG fed at 3 months. There were 6 complications from PEG insertion. No patients r…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clnu.2003.09.008

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two studies on nasal loops in tube-fed stroke patients demonstrated that nasal loops are safe, well-tolerated and effective in delivering full enteral nutrition.

    “Two studies on nasal loops in tube-fed stroke patients demonstrated that nasal loops are safe, well-tolerated and effective in delivering full EN (167-169).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anderson, M. R., O’Connor, M., Mayer, P., O’Mahony, D., Woodward, J., & Kane, K.
Affiliations
Selly Oak Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Anderson, Mark R
Venue
Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-08
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
501-506
ISSN
0261-5614 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077005017
Cited by
52
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Birmingham
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
Keywords
percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, nasogastric tube feeding, enteral nutrition, swallowing recovery, feeding complications
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Deglutition Disorders, Enteral Nutrition, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Gastrostomy, Humans, Male, Nose, Prospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Recovery of Function, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review