Table 1.
Evidence regarding NG feeding in acute pancreatitis.
| First Author | Year | Study Design | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kwok M. Ho [76] | 2006 | RCT | In critically ill adults with a good gastric emptying function, the use of NJ feeding instead of NG feeding was not associated with significant clinical advantages. |
| Kumar A. [77] | 2006 | RCT | EN by both NK and NG is well tolerated in patients with SAP without leading to recurrence or worsening of pain. |
| Petrov MS. [78] | 2008 | SR | NG route is safe and well tolerated in patients with predicted SAP. |
| Petrov MS. [98] | 2013 | RCT | Comparing NG feeding with NPO, the former significantly reduces the intensity and span of abdominal pain, need for analgesic, and risk of oral food intolerance. |
| Sing N. [79] | 2012 | RCT | Early NG feeding was not inferior to NJ in patients with SAP. |
| Chang Ys. [82] | 2013 | MA | No significant differences were found between NG and NJ tube regarding tracheal aspiration, energy balance, diarrhea, and mortality rate. |
| Nally D. [74] | 2014 | SR and MA | NG feeding is fruitful in patients with severe AP. |
| Zhu Y. [83] | 2016 | MA | Comparing NG or NJ nutrition in patients with SAP, no significant dissimilarities were found in the mortality rate, infectious and/or digestive complications, achieving energy balance, or length of hospital stay. |
| Guo Y. [99] | 2016 | SR and MA | NG may be the feeding solution choice in patients with SAP. |
| Pendharkar SA. [84] | 2014 | SR and MA | Nasogastric tube feeding was found to have no influence on the patient’s quality of life. |
| Eatock FC. [86] | 2005 | RT | The simpler, inexpensive, and more manageable used NG feeding is as good as NJ feeding in SAP. |
| Hauschild TB. [87] | 2012 | CS | NG tube feeding constitutes an economically preferable solution. |
CS: comparative study, MA: meta-analysis, NG: nasogastric, NJ: nasojejunal, RCT: randomized controlled trial, RT: randomized trial, SAP: severe acute pancreatitis, SR: systematic review.