A Multimodal Assessment of Gastric Motility, Reflux Risk, and Clinical Efficacy: Intermittent Oro-Esophageal Versus Nasogastric Tube Feeding for Poststroke Dysphagia in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Arch Phys Med RehabilJul 17, 2026 (epub)

Jing Xu, KaiWen Xue, XiaoXuan Li et al.

✦ AI-curated · Sources linked

In 30 seconds

This prospective, single-centre randomized controlled trial compared intermittent oro-esophageal (IOE) with nasogastric (NG) tube feeding in 54 adults with poststroke dysphagia, alongside standardized swallowing rehabilitation for 14 days. Gastric emptying and gastric antrum cross-sectional area did not differ significantly between groups. Compared with NG feeding, IOE was associated with lower immediate postprandial reflux-mediated aspiration risk, greater tube-feeding removal success, and greater improvement in swallowing function. The reported advantages were more pronounced among patients with greater baseline functional impairment. The findings suggest potential benefits of IOE, but do not establish differences in gastric emptying.

Key findings

  • Gastric emptying rate and gastric antrum cross-sectional area showed no significant between-group differences (all P>.05).
  • IOE was associated with lower immediate postprandial reflux-mediated aspiration risk (F=5.467; P=.023) than NG feeding.
  • Tube-feeding removal success was higher with IOE (χ²=4.964; P=.02), and swallowing function improved more (P<.001).
  • Greater baseline functional impairment moderated IOE benefits for aspiration reduction (β=-0.36; P=.004) and swallowing recovery (β=-1.40; P=.02).

Why it matters

Enteral feeding strategy may be relevant to reflux-mediated aspiration risk and swallowing recovery in poststroke dysphagia, even when measured gastric emptying is similar. The trial also suggests that baseline functional impairment may influence the relative benefit observed. These outcomes can inform evaluation of feeding approaches, while the single-centre study and short intervention period warrant caution in generalizing the findings.

What to keep in mind

The trial was single-centre, included 54 participants, and assessed outcomes after a 14-day intervention.

Source

Published in Arch Phys Med Rehabil. This summary was written by xxcode from the publication's abstract and metadata. It is not peer reviewed and is not a substitute for the original article. For clinical decisions, review the original publication.

ShareTelegramLinkedIn

AI-generated summaries may contain errors or omissions. Verify clinically important information with the original publication.

More in Neurology

Want this personalized?

Stop searching the literature. Choose what you follow and xxcode will build your personalized medical digest.

  • Your specialties
  • Your filters and thresholds
  • Clinical Research + Case Reports, tuned separately
  • Automatic weekly delivery
  • Audio and text

Prefer listening? Personalized audio digests are available with Pro.

Stay updated for free

Get the 3 most interesting publications in one specialty each week.

Weekly email. Unsubscribe anytime.