Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes: a systematic review and...

Current evidence supporting the utility of electromagnetic (EM)-guided method as the preferred technique for post-pyloric feeding tube placement is limited. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of EM-guided versus endoscopic placement.

We searched several databases for all randomised controlled trials evaluating the EM-guided vs. endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes up to 28 July 2020. Primary outcome was procedure success rate. Secondary outcomes included reinsertion rate, number of attempts, placement-related complications, tube-related complications, insertion time, total procedure time, patient discomfort, recommendation scores, length of hospital stay, mortality, and total costs.

Four trials involving 536 patients were qualified for the final analysis. There was no difference between the two groups in procedure success rate (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.91-1.03), reinsertion rate (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.59-1.20), number of attempts (WMD - 0.23; 95% CI - 0.99-0.53), placement-related complications (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.41-1.49), tube-related complications (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.82-1.44), total procedure time (WMD - 18.09 min; 95% CI - 38.66-2.47), length of hospital stay (WMD 1.57 days; 95% CI - 0.33-3.47), ICU mortality (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.50-1.29), in-hospital mortality (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.59-1.28), and total costs (SMD - 1.80; 95% CI - 3.96-0.36). The EM group was associated with longer insertion time (WMD 4.3 min; 95% CI 0.2-8.39), higher patient discomfort level (WMD 1.28; 95% CI 0.46-2.1), and higher recommendation scores (WMD 1.67; 95% CI 0.24-3.10).

No significant difference was found between the two groups in efficacy, safety, and costs. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

PROSPERO ( CRD42020172427 ).