Effect of postpyloric feeding on gastroesophageal regurgitation and pulmonary microaspiration: Results of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which postpyloric feeding reduces gastroesophageal regurgitation and pulmonary microaspiration in critically ill patients. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: A medical/surgical intensive care unit at a tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Intensive care unit patients were expected to remain ventilated >72 hrs. We excluded patients with esophageal, gastric, or small bowel surgery in the last week and patients with overt or clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding. We studied 33 patients; 42.4% were female, mean age (sd) was 59.2 (+/- 16.8) yrs, and mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 22.5 (7.8). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to gastric or postpyloric enteral feeds. Technetium 99-sulphur colloid was added to the feeds for 6 hrs of each of the first 3 days on study. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: We sampled the oropharynx and trachea hourly for the 6 hrs per day that patients received radioisotope-labeled enteral feeds, and the level of radioactivity in these specimens was measured. We defined an episode of gastroesophageal regurgitation and microaspiration as an increase in radioactivity >100 counts per minute/g. Patients fed into the stomach had more episodes of gastroesophageal regurgitation (39.8% vs. 24.9%, p =.04) and trended toward more microaspiration (7.5% vs. 3.9%, p =.22) compared with patients fed beyond the pylorus. When the logarithmic mean of the radioactivity count was compared across groups, there was a trend toward an increase in gastroesophageal regurgitation (3.7 vs. 2.9 counts/g, p =.22) and a trend toward increased microaspiration (1.9 vs. 1.4 counts/g, p =.09) in patients fed into the stomach. Patients who had gastroesophageal regurgitation were much more likely to aspirate than patients who did not have gastroesophageal regurgitation (odds ratio: 3.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.36, 7.77). CONCLUSIONS: Feeding beyond the pylorus is associated with a significant reduction in gastroesophageal regurgitation and a trend toward less microaspiration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".