ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024
Laryngopharyngeal Mucosal Injury Due to Nasogastric Tube Insertion during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Comment on Miyamoto et al. Laryngopharyngeal Mucosal Injury Due to Nasogastric Tube Insertion during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Reply to Maxwell, A. Comment on "Miyamoto et al. Laryngopharyngeal Mucosal Injury Due to Nasogastric Tube Insertion during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients under cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are at high risk of aspirating gastric contents. Nasogastric tube insertion (NGTI) after tracheal intubation is usually performed blindly. This sometimes causes laryngopharyngeal mucosal injury (LPMI), leading to severe bleeding. This study clarified the incidence of LPMI due to blind NGTI during CPR.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 84 patients presenting with cardiopulmonary arrest on arrival, categorized them into a Smooth group (Smooth; blind NGTI was possible within 2 min), and Difficult group (blind NGTI was not possible), and consequently performed video laryngoscope-assisted NGTI. The laryngopharyngeal mucosal condition was recorded using video laryngoscope. Success rates and insertion time for the Smooth group were calculated. Insertion number and LPMI scores were compared between the groups. Each regression line of outcome measurements was obtained using simple regression analysis. We also analyzed the causes of the Difficult group, using recorded video laryngoscope-assisted videos.
resultsThe success rate was 78.6% (66/84). NGTI time was 48.8 ± 4.0 s in the Smooth group. Insertion number and injury scores in the Smooth group were significantly lower than those in the Difficult group. The severity of LPMI increased with NGT insertion time and insertion number.
conclusionsWhenever blind NGTI is difficult, switching to other methods is essential to prevent unnecessary persistence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.