Comparison table of NGT and NJT_
| Comparison criteria | NGT | NJT |
|---|---|---|
| Complexity of placement | Simple, no imaging guidance required | Technically demanding, often requires fluoroscopic or endoscopic guidance |
| Risk of aspiration | Higher (due to reflux potential) | Significantly reduced (direct delivery to jejunum) |
| Gastrointestinal tolerance | Higher incidence of nausea, vomiting, or bloating | Better tolerance |
| Target population | Suitable for stable patients with good gastrointestinal tolerance | Preferred for high-risk patients (e.g., mechanically ventilated, bedridden, or aspiration-prone) |
| Infection Risk | Lower | Slightly higher (invasive placement increases infection risk) |
| Cost-Effectiveness | More economical | Higher cost (requires specialized equipment and expertise) |
| Clinical Priority | Reasonable choice in resource-limited settings | Preferred for elderly SAP patients (requires comprehensive evaluation of patient condition) |