|
The Cochrane Collaboration
Cochrane Reviews |
| Explore | New + Updated | Other languages |
|
 |
Enteral tube feeding for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron diseaseLangmore SE, Kasarskis EJ, Manca ML, Olney RK
Bookmark this:
     more ...
SummaryEnteral feeding (tube feeding) in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as motor neuron diseaseAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease is a progressive neuromuscular disease causing muscle weakness resulting in paralysis. It is usually fatal. At some stage in the disease, most people have difficulty chewing and swallowing (dysphagia). This can cause significant weight loss. At this stage enteral feeding, or the placing of a feeding tube through the abdominal wall to the stomach (also known as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy), may be recommended to maintain adequate nutrition. This review looked for evidence from randomized controlled trials on survival, maintaining adequate nutrition and quality of life and complications of feeding tube placement. No randomized controlled trials were found. Non-randomized evidence suggests a benefit from enteral feeding but this needs to be confirmed in a large randomized controlled trial.
This is a Cochrane review abstract and plain language summary, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration, currently published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010 Issue 1, Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.. The full text of the review is available in The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1464-780X).
This version first published online:
October 18. 2006 AbstractBackgroundEnteral feeding (tube feeding) is offered to many people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease experiencing difficulty swallowing (dysphagia) and maintaining adequate nutritional intake leading to weight loss. ObjectivesThe aim of this review is to examine the efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement or other tube feeding placement on: Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials Register (June 2005), MEDLINE (from January 1966 to June 2005), and EMBASE (from January 1980 to June 2005) for randomized controlled trials. In addition we searched MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2005) and EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2005) to identify non-randomized studies that might be worthy of review and discussion. We checked references in published articles, proceedings of scientific meetings, and enlisted personal communications to identify any additional references. Selection criteriaAll randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials were to have been selected. Since no such trials were discovered, all prospective and retrospective controlled studies were reviewed in the 'Background' or 'Discussion' sections of the review. Data collection and analysisWe independently assessed study methodological design and extracted data. We considered the following outcomes: (1) survival rate in months (of primary interest), (2) nutritional status measured by weight change, change in body mass index, or other quantitative index of nutritional status, and (3) self-perceived quality of life We were also interested in reports of safety of the procedure as indicated by (4) minor and major complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or other feeding tube placement. Main resultsWe found no randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of enteral tube feeding with those people who continued to eat orally, without enteral feeding. We summarized the results of retrospective and prospective case controlled studies in the 'Discussion' section of this review. Authors' conclusionsThere are no randomized controlled trials to indicate whether enteral tube feeding is beneficial compared to continuation of oral feeding for survival. The 'best' evidence to date, based on controlled prospective cohort studies, suggests an advantage for survival in all people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease, but these conclusions are tentative. Evidence for improved nutrition is also incomplete but tentatively favorable. Quality of life has only been addressed by a few researchers and needs more serious attention. |