Skip to content

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

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

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00245687
Enrollment
60
Registered
2005-10-28
Start date
2005-06-30
Completion date
2007-06-30
Last updated
2014-03-14

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

no Primary Disease; ICU Patient Who Require Enteral Nutrition

Keywords

feeding tube, nutrition, gastric, jejunal

Brief summary

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.

Detailed description

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.

Interventions

DEVICETiger Tube

Sponsors

Thomas Jefferson University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* all ICU patients requiring enteral nutrition

Exclusion criteria

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

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
success in placing feeding tube

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
- rate of reaching nutritional goal, aspiration pneumonia, feeding tolerance, and pre-albumin

Countries

United States

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026