Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT00245687

A Research Study to Test (2) Two Different Types of Feeding Tubes Used in the Intensive Care Unit

The purpose of this study is to compare the success rates of two types of feeding tubes, specifically the standard gastric feeding tube to a small bowel feeding tube.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Thomas Jefferson University Hospital - MRICU

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107, United States

About this study

Enteral nutrition has many advantages for critically ill patients including lower incidence of infections and a reduced hospital stay, however it is controversial whether enteral feeding via small bowel feeding tubes offers an advantage over gastric feeding tubes in terms of reducing aspiration risk, improving feeding tolerance or ensuring quicker attainment of nutritional goals. The advantages of a small bowel feeding tube over a gastric feeding tube is thought to be related to its post pyloric position, however the insertion of small bowel feeding tubes is technically challenging (most studies report a success rate of 15-30%), can take time and has complications not unlike those of the gastric feeding tube. Our hypothesis is that the small bowel feeding tube offers an advantage to the gastric feeding tube due to its ability to achieve post pyloric placement. Specifically we chose to compare the standard gastric feeding tube (Dubhoff) to a small bowel feeding tube which offers the advantage of having alternating flaps which allows the gut to drag this tube into the small bowel.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • all ICU patients requiring enteral nutrition

Exclusion criteria

  • coagulopathy, esophageal or gastric, surgery, varices, trauma, ulcer, structure, rupture

Treatment and study plan

Tiger Tube

Device

Primary outcomes

  1. success in placing feeding tube

Secondary outcomes

  1. - rate of reaching nutritional goal, aspiration pneumonia, feeding tolerance, and pre-albumin

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Thomas Jefferson University

Other

Registry information

Official study title

A Comparative Study of the Tiger Tube Frictional Nasal Jejunal Feeding Tube and the Dubhoff Tube

Important dates

Study start
2005
Study completion
2007
First posted
Oct 28, 2005
Registry last updated
Mar 14, 2014

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.