PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

Complications in dogs with nasoesophageal vs nasogastric feeding tubes

By Yu, Melissa K et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)·2013·Department of Clinical Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed

PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →

Original publication title: Comparison of complication rates in dogs with nasoesophageal versus nasogastric feeding tubes.

Species:
dog
Stomach & digestionDogs

Plain-English summary

A group of 46 dogs needing help with feeding were given either nasoesophageal (NE) tubes or nasogastric (NG) tubes. While both types of tubes had similar complication rates, fewer dogs with NE tubes died or were euthanized compared to those with NG tubes. The study found that the dogs with NE tubes were generally younger, but there were no significant differences in other health factors or complications. Overall, both feeding tube types were effective, but the NE tube may have a better survival outcome.

People also search for: dog feeding tube complications · nasoesophageal tube vs nasogastric tube · dog tube feeding care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare complication rates between nasoesophageal (NE) and nasogastric (NG) feeding tubes in dogs. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: University referral veterinary hospital. ANIMALS: A total of 46 dogs that were fed through a NE (n = 28) or NG (n = 18) tube between January 2007 and December 2011 and that also had either thoracic radiography or computed tomography performed so that location of the distal tip of the tube in either the esophagus or stomach could be confirmed. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The medical record of each eligible case was reviewed and data recorded included signalment, underlying disease, body weight, body condition score, medications, duration of feeding, diet used, and complications observed (ie, vomiting, regurgitation, diarrhea, early tube removal, clogged tube, epistaxis, pulmonary aspiration, hyperglycemia, and refeeding syndrome). Dogs with NE tubes were significantly younger than dogs with NG tubes (P = 0.03) but there were no other significant differences in signalment, underlying disease, medications, duration of anorexia, percent of resting energy requirement achieved, or change in weight during tube feeding. There also was no significant difference between the NE and NG groups for any of the recorded complications. Significantly fewer dogs in the NE group died or were euthanized (3/28) compared to the NG group (7/18; P = 0.02) but outcome was not associated with age, underlying disease, or any of the recorded tube complications. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not identify a difference in complication rate between NE and NG feeding tubes in dogs. Additional studies are required to determine the optimal terminal location of feeding tubes in dogs.

Find similar cases for your pet

PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.

Search related cases →

Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23621520/