Faculty mentor/PI email address
emazza@virtua.org
Keywords
enteral nutrition, feed tube placement, IRIS technology, electromagnetic guidance
Date of Presentation
5-6-2026 12:00 AM
Poster Abstract
Background
Enteral nutrition (EN) is preferred in patients with functional gastrointestinal tracts. Traditional feeding tube placement methods are time-consuming, radiation-dependent, and prone to misplacement. IRIS and electromagnetic (EM)-guided systems enable real-time bedside placement, though comparative data remain limited.
Methods
A qualitative literature review was conducted using PubMed (2004–2024) to identify studies evaluating IRIS technology compared with EM-guided and traditional placement methods. Outcomes of interest included procedural success, safety, complication rates, efficiency, and cost considerations across ICU and ward populations.
Results
IRIS demonstrated success rates ranging from 75–91.7%, with higher success observed in ICU and sedated patients. EM-guided placement showed consistent success (~87.5%). IRIS placement times were rapid (~5–13.5 minutes), with improved efficiency as operator experience increased. A key advantage of IRIS was real-time visualization, allowing pre-carina detection of airway misplacement and early intervention. Complication rates were low across studies, with minimal major adverse events. Despite improved procedural efficiency, workflow delays persisted due to continued reliance on confirmatory imaging in some settings. IRIS showed potential cost benefits through reduced imaging utilization, fewer complications, and earlier initiation of enteral feeding.
Conclusion
IRIS-guided feeding tube placement provides comparable success to EM-guided systems with the added benefit of direct visualization, enhancing safety and procedural confidence. While promising, current evidence is limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneity, and lack of standardized protocols. Larger prospective multicenter studies are needed to better define its clinical and economic impact.
Disciplines
Dietetics and Clinical Nutrition | Equipment and Supplies | Medicine and Health Sciences
Comparative Evaluation of IRIS and Traditional Feeding Tube Placement Methods: A Review of the Literature
Background
Enteral nutrition (EN) is preferred in patients with functional gastrointestinal tracts. Traditional feeding tube placement methods are time-consuming, radiation-dependent, and prone to misplacement. IRIS and electromagnetic (EM)-guided systems enable real-time bedside placement, though comparative data remain limited.
Methods
A qualitative literature review was conducted using PubMed (2004–2024) to identify studies evaluating IRIS technology compared with EM-guided and traditional placement methods. Outcomes of interest included procedural success, safety, complication rates, efficiency, and cost considerations across ICU and ward populations.
Results
IRIS demonstrated success rates ranging from 75–91.7%, with higher success observed in ICU and sedated patients. EM-guided placement showed consistent success (~87.5%). IRIS placement times were rapid (~5–13.5 minutes), with improved efficiency as operator experience increased. A key advantage of IRIS was real-time visualization, allowing pre-carina detection of airway misplacement and early intervention. Complication rates were low across studies, with minimal major adverse events. Despite improved procedural efficiency, workflow delays persisted due to continued reliance on confirmatory imaging in some settings. IRIS showed potential cost benefits through reduced imaging utilization, fewer complications, and earlier initiation of enteral feeding.
Conclusion
IRIS-guided feeding tube placement provides comparable success to EM-guided systems with the added benefit of direct visualization, enhancing safety and procedural confidence. While promising, current evidence is limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneity, and lack of standardized protocols. Larger prospective multicenter studies are needed to better define its clinical and economic impact.