MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306410793 · doi:10.1111/jocs.17040

Should nasogastric tube be used routinely in patients undergoing cardiac surgery? A narrative review

2022· review· en· W4306410793 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Paleczny, Rubab Fatima, Yannis Amador, Mohammad El‐Diasty

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiac Surgery · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNausea and vomiting management
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNauseaVomitingCochrane LibraryIncidence (geometry)AnesthesiaPostoperative nausea and vomitingMEDLINECardiac surgerySurgeryRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Nasogastric tube (NGT) use has been common in the immediate postoperative period in surgical patients for decades. Potential advantages include the decompression of gastric contents and the early administration of time-sensitive medications. However, its routine use after cardiac surgery has not been established as a gold standard yet. The NGT use for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting has been a matter of debate in literature. Also, NGT use has also been associated with the incidence of some respiratory and gastrointestinal complications and it may be a source of significant pain and discomfort to patients. In this article, we review the current available literature regarding the use of NGT during and immediately after cardiac surgery, with particular emphasis on its potential role in enhanced postoperative recovery. METHODS: We performed a database search in October 2021 using Embase, Cochrane Library, and Medline to identify studies that examined the use of NGT in patients that underwent cardiac surgery. Data and literature about NGT's impact on post-operative nausea and vomiting, early administration of medications, interference with imaging, post-operative complications, respiratory complications, gastrointestinal complications, pain and discomfort, and enhanced recovery after surgery were examined. RESULTS: Three reports investigating the use of NGT to reduce post-operative nausea and vomiting were examined with sample sizes of 114, 104, and 202. The use of NGT did not significantly reduce the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting in 2/3 of the studies: a 2% nausea reduction with NGT (p < 0.05), a 7.7% nausea reduction with NGT (p = 0.6), and a 14% vomiting reduction with NGT (p = 0.007). The prevalence of pneumonia following NGT use has been shown to vary ranging from 4 to 95% with associated mortality rates of 17 to 62%. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, there is currently not sufficient evidence to support the routine use of NGT during cardiac surgery. Further research is needed to establish the role of NGT in this patient population.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.009
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiac SurgerySame topicNausea and vomiting managementFrench-language works237,207