Delayed gastric perforation following nasogastric tube insertion: the pitfalls of radiographic confirmation

A man in his 70s, admitted to intensive care unit following an out of hospital cardiac arrest, had a nasogastric (NG) tube inserted on admission. Correct placement of the NG tube had been confirmed using National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) criteria and was used for feeding without incident. He remained intubated and ventilated throughout his stay. On day 9 his oxygen requirements increased with subsequent chest imaging revealing an incidental gastric perforation secondary to NG tube migration. The NG tube was removed intact and undamaged. The patient appeared to improve without sequelae from the perforation or signs of abdominal sepsis. Unfortunately his condition deteriorated due to a large right atrial thrombus and life sustaining treatments were withdrawn.

Practical procedures

This chapter assesses the practical procedures in surgery. It begins with airway procedures, including the anaesthesia face mask, laryngeal mask airway (LMA), and endotracheal intubation. It also looks at percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and cricothyroidotomy, before differentiating between non-invasive and invasive ventilation. The chapter then turns to circulation procedures, including venepuncture and intravenous cannulation; interosseous access; central venous cannulation; arterial puncture and arterial cannulation; cardioversion; and defibrillation. It also considers the insertion and management of chest drain, which is used to drain pneumothoraces or pleural effusions. Finally, the chapter deals with pericardiocentesis; nasogastric tube insertion; urethral and suprapubic catheterisation; abdominal paracentesis; rigid sigmoidoscopy; and local and regional anaesthesia.

Modified Gastric Biopsy Forceps as a Flexible Stylet-Assisted Nasogastric Tube Insertion in Anesthetized and Intubated Patients: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

Background: Insertion of a nasogastric tube in an anesthetized intubated patient may be difficult. A nasogastric tube is prone to coil and kink during insertion. The authors hypothesized that gastric biopsy forceps could be used as a flexible stylet-assisted nasogastric tube insertion. It can improve the first-attempt success rate over the conventional blind technique during nasogastric tube insertion in the anesthetized intubated patient. Materials and Methods: Eighty adult patients who required intraoperative nasogastric tube insertions were randomized to the gastric biopsy forceps assisted technique (stylet group) or the conventional blind technique (control group) for insertion of a nasogastric tube. The success rates, the duration of insertion, the incidences of coiling and kinking of a nasogastric tube, and the occurrences of complications were recorded. Results: The first-attempt success rate was 92.5% in the stylet group compared with 65% in the control group (p=0.013). The overall success rate was higher in the stylet group (100% versus 85%, p=0.026). The mean time required to insert the nasogastric tube was shorter in the stylet group (24.85±9.62 versus 62.4±59.38 seconds, p=0.002). The incidences of coiling and kinking were lower in the stylet group (7.5% versus 32.5%, p=0.005). The incidence of minor bleeding was lower in the stylet group, but not statistically significant (2.5% versus 17.5%, p=0.057). No other complications were observed in either groups. Conclusion: The gastric biopsy forceps-assisted nasogastric tube insertion resulted in a higher success rate, less time for insertion, and lower incidence of coiling and kinking of a nasogastric tube than the conventional blind technique in anesthetized intubated patients without serious complications. Keywords: Nasogastric tube; Insertion; Stylet; Gastric biopsy forceps; Success rate

P130 Timing of nasogastric tube insertion and risk of postoperative pneumonia: international, prospective cohort study

Introduction This study aims to assess whether Prophylactic NGT insertion was associated with reduced rates of pneumonia, in comparison to Reactive NGT after colorectal surgery. Methods Pre-planned secondary analysis of a multicentre, prospective cohort study. Patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery between January and April 2018 were included. Those receiving NGT were divided into three groups, based on the timing of the placement: Routine (at the time of surgery); Prophylactic (after surgery, before vomiting); and Reactive (after surgery, after vomiting). Pneumonia within 30 postoperative days was considered as primary outcome measure and it was compared between the three groups using multivariable regression analysis. Results 4,715 patients were included in the analysis. 1,536 (32.6%) received an NGT corresponding to 926 (60.3%) Routine, 461 (30%) Reactive and 149 (9.7%) Prophylactic. 200 patients (4.2%) developed pneumonia (No NGT: 2.7%; Routine NGT: 5.2%; Reactive NGT: 10.6%; Prophylactic NGT: 11.4%). After adjustment for confounding factors, no significant difference in pneumonia rates was detected between the Prophylactic and Reactive NGT groups (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.56 – 1.87, p = 0.932). Conclusion In patients who required NGT insertion after surgery, prophylactic insertion was not associated with fewer cases of pneumonia within 30 days of surgery in comparison to reactive insertion.