Evidence Hub

Endoscope-guided nasoenteric feeding improves sleep quality in ICU patients: a retrospective study

Yue-Ming Wu, Shan Jiang, Liuhua Pan, Jing Zhao, Yihao Kang, Yue-Qun Chen

European Journal of Medical Research, 2026

32 participants

Abstract

Poor sleep and circadian disruption are pervasive in critically ill adults receiving enteral nutrition. Whether feeding-tube placement technique influences these physiological outcomes is unknown. Disposable endoscope-guided tubes provide real-time visualization and might improve both procedural performance and downstream sleep–circadian biology. In this single-centre retrospective cohort study, we analysed 32 adults requiring nasoenteric feeding, 16 managed with a disposable endoscopic visual tube and 16 with conventional blind tubes. Baseline demographic, clinical, nutritional, and laboratory characteristics were comparable. The primary endpoint was first-attempt catheterization success confirmed by radiography. Secondary endpoints included overall success, catheterization time, operator ratings, 48-h safety, polysomnography- and actigraphy-derived sleep metrics, and circadian markers (including dim-light melatonin onset [DLMO], relative amplitude, and interdaily stability). Endoscopic guidance improved first-attempt success (15/16 [93.8%] vs. 10/16 [62.5%]; p = 0.03) and shortened catheterization time (6.2 ± 1.3 vs. 8.5 ± 2.1 min; p = 0.004). Operators rated intubation smoother (4.6 ± 0.5 vs. 3.9 ± 0.7; p = 0.002) and more convenient (4.7 ± 0.5 vs. 4.0 ± 0.6; p = 0.003). Vital signs, haemoglobin, creatinine, adverse events, and device defects did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). Sleep–circadian outcomes showed higher sleep efficiency (82.0 ± 6.7% vs. 69.0 ± 9.7%),…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 32 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free