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.
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.