-
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jul 2014Gastroenteric tube feeding plays a major role in the management of patients with poor voluntary intake, chronic neurological or mechanical dysphagia or gut dysfunction,... (Review)
Review
Gastroenteric tube feeding plays a major role in the management of patients with poor voluntary intake, chronic neurological or mechanical dysphagia or gut dysfunction, and patients who are critically ill. However, despite the benefits and widespread use of enteral tube feeding, some patients experience complications. This review aims to discuss and compare current knowledge regarding the clinical application of enteral tube feeding, together with associated complications and special aspects. We conducted an extensive literature search on PubMed, Embase and Medline using index terms relating to enteral access, enteral feeding/nutrition, tube feeding, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy/jejunostomy, endoscopic nasoenteric tube, nasogastric tube, and refeeding syndrome. The literature showed common routes of enteral access to include nasoenteral tube, gastrostomy and jejunostomy, while complications fall into four major categories: mechanical, e.g., tube blockage or removal; gastrointestinal, e.g., diarrhea; infectious e.g., aspiration pneumonia, tube site infection; and metabolic, e.g., refeeding syndrome, hyperglycemia. Although the type and frequency of complications arising from tube feeding vary considerably according to the chosen access route, gastrointestinal complications are without doubt the most common. Complications associated with enteral tube feeding can be reduced by careful observance of guidelines, including those related to food composition, administration rate, portion size, food temperature and patient supervision.
Topics: Cooperative Behavior; Enteral Nutrition; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Lung Diseases; Metabolic Diseases; Nutritional Status; Patient Care Team; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25024606
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i26.8505 -
Nutrients May 2022Enteral nutrition (EN) provides critical macro and micronutrients to individuals who cannot maintain sufficient oral intake to meet their nutritional needs. EN is most... (Review)
Review
Enteral nutrition (EN) provides critical macro and micronutrients to individuals who cannot maintain sufficient oral intake to meet their nutritional needs. EN is most commonly required for neurological conditions that impair swallow function, such as stroke, amytrophic lateral sclerosis, and Parkinson's disease. An inability to swallow due to mechanical ventilation and altered mental status are also common conditions that necessitate the use of EN. EN can be short or long term and delivered gastrically or post-pylorically. The expected duration and site of feeding determine the type of feeding tube used. Many commercial EN formulas are available. In addition to standard formulations, disease specific, peptide-based, and blenderized formulas are also available. Several other factors should be considered when providing EN, including timing and rate of initiation, advancement regimen, feeding modality, and risk of complications. Careful and comprehensive assessment of the patient will help to ensure that nutritionally complete and clinically appropriate EN is delivered safely.
Topics: Clinical Protocols; Enteral Nutrition; Food, Formulated; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Micronutrients
PubMed: 35683980
DOI: 10.3390/nu14112180 -
JPEN. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral... May 2023Drug administration through feeding tubes presents many challenges to the healthcare provider. There is little information available on medications than can be delivered... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Drug administration through feeding tubes presents many challenges to the healthcare provider. There is little information available on medications than can be delivered safely when crushed and what efforts can be implemented to minimize clogging the feeding tube. Our institution requested a comprehensive examination of all oral medications for the feeding tube route.
METHODS
This report is a synopsis of the physical evaluation of 323 different oral medications for their appropriateness for feeding tube administration with distal site in either the stomach or jejunum. A worksheet was created for each medication. This document contained a review of the chemical and physical properties that would contribute to delivery of the medication. Each medication was then studied for the degree of disintegration, pH, osmolality, and potential to form clogs. For drugs that needed to be crushed, the volume of water needed to dissolve the drug, time for that process, and volume needed to rinse the tube after administration was also studied.
RESULTS
The results of this review are summarized in a table and based on a composite of the documents cited, tests conducted, and author's judgements based all the data collected. Thirty-six medications were identified as inappropriate for feeding tube administration, and an additional 46 medications were identified as inappropriate for direct jejunal administration.
CONCLUSION
The information produced by this study will enable clinicians to make informed choices in selecting, compounding, and rinsing medications through feeding tubes. Using the template provided, they will be able to evaluate a drug not studied here for potential issues in feeding tube administration.
Topics: Humans; Enteral Nutrition; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Osmolar Concentration; Health Personnel; Administration, Oral
PubMed: 36847617
DOI: 10.1002/jpen.2490 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jun 2014Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the preferred route of feeding and nutritional support in patients with a functional gastrointestinal system who require... (Review)
Review
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the preferred route of feeding and nutritional support in patients with a functional gastrointestinal system who require long-term enteral nutrition. Besides its well-known advantages over parenteral nutrition, PEG offers superior access to the gastrointestinal system over surgical methods. Considering that nowadays PEG tube placement is one of the most common endoscopic procedures performed worldwide, knowing its indications and contraindications is of paramount importance in current medicine. PEG tubes are sometimes placed inappropriately in patients unable to tolerate adequate oral intake because of incorrect and unrealistic understanding of their indications and what they can accomplish. Broadly, the two main indications of PEG tube placement are enteral feeding and stomach decompression. On the other hand, distal enteral obstruction, severe uncorrectable coagulopathy and hemodynamic instability constitute the main absolute contraindications for PEG tube placement in hospitalized patients. Although generally considered to be a safe procedure, there is the potential for both minor and major complications. Awareness of these potential complications, as well as understanding routine aftercare of the catheter, can improve the quality of care for patients with a PEG tube. These complications can generally be classified into three major categories: endoscopic technical difficulties, PEG procedure-related complications and late complications associated with PEG tube use and wound care. In this review we describe a variety of minor and major tube-related complications as well as strategies for their management and avoidance. Different methods of percutaneous PEG tube placement into the stomach have been described in the literature with the "pull" technique being the most common method. In the last section of this review, the reader is presented with a brief discussion of these procedures, techniques and related issues. Despite the mentioned PEG tube placement complications, this procedure has gained worldwide popularity as a safe enteral access for nutrition in patients with a functional gastrointestinal system.
Topics: Device Removal; Enteral Nutrition; Equipment Design; Gastroscopy; Gastrostomy; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24976711
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i24.7739 -
BMJ Open Gastroenterology Jul 2022Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) was developed by Ponsky-Gauderer in the early 1980s. These tubes are placed through the abdominal wall mainly to administer... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) was developed by Ponsky-Gauderer in the early 1980s. These tubes are placed through the abdominal wall mainly to administer fluids, drugs and/or enteral nutrition but can also be used for drainage or decompression. The tubes consist of an internal and external retention device. It is a generally safe technique but major or minor complications may arise during and after tube placement.
METHOD
A narrative review of the literature investigating minor complications after PEG placement.
RESULTS
This review was written from a clinical viewpoint focusing on prevention and management of minor complications and documented with real cases from more than 21 years of clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS
Depending on the literature the incidence of minor complications after gastrostomy placement can be high. To decrease associated morbidity, prevention, early recognition and popper management of these complications are important.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Gastrostomy
PubMed: 35851280
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2022-000975 -
Nutrients Sep 2019To determine the association between home enteral nutrition (HEN) administration modality and its complications in patients.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the association between home enteral nutrition (HEN) administration modality and its complications in patients.
METHODS
This is a prospective multicenter longitudinal study including 15 Spanish hospitals, from April 2015 to March 2017. A 4-month follow-up period was conducted for each patient by home visit. The study subjects were adult patients who began their nutrient intake by tube feeding, known as HEN, during the recruitment period. The variables studied included the type and modality of HEN administration and its related complications, such as vomiting, regurgitation, constipation, diarrhea, and abdominal distention. Mechanical complications and bronchoaspiration were also evaluated. Descriptive variables were used for fitting.
RESULTS
The study consisted of 306 patients; 4 were lost due to death. Specific HEN modalities protected against constipation (odds ratio (OR) = 0.4) and regurgitation (OR = 0.4). The use of a nasogastric tube (NGT) resulted in a lower risk of diarrhea compared to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) (OR = 0.4) but resulted in a higher risk of tube obstruction (OR = 7.4). The use of intermittent gravity versus bolus feeding was a protection factor against vomiting (OR = 0.4), regurgitation (OR = 0.3), constipation (OR = 0.3), diarrhea (OR = 0.4) and abdominal distension (OR = 0.4). The increase in the number of doses was a risk factor for the incidence of regurgitation (OR = 1.3).
CONCLUSIONS
Gastrointestinal complications were the most frequent problems, but an adequate choice of the formula, route, feeding modality, number of doses, administration time, and dose volume can reduce the risk of these complications.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Constipation; Diarrhea; Enteral Nutrition; Female; Food, Formulated; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Gastrostomy; Home Care Services; Humans; Incidence; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Longitudinal Studies; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Prospective Studies; Time Factors; Vomiting
PubMed: 31480563
DOI: 10.3390/nu11092041 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Jan 2016In cancer patients, weight loss is an ominous sign suggesting disease progression and shortened survival time. As a result, providing nutrition support for cancer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In cancer patients, weight loss is an ominous sign suggesting disease progression and shortened survival time. As a result, providing nutrition support for cancer patients has been proposed as a logical approach for improving clinical outcomes. Nutrition support can be given to patients through enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN). The purpose of the review was to compare the outcomes of PN and EN in cancer patients.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE and OLDMEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were included if over half of the patient population had cancer and reported on any of the following endpoints: the percentage of patients that experienced no infection, nutrition support complications, major complications or mortality. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Review Manager Version 5.3 were calculated. Primary endpoints were stratified according to type of EN for subgroup analysis, grouping studies into either tube feeding (TF) or standard care (SC). Additionally, another subgroup analysis was conducted comparing studies with protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) patients and studies without PEM patients.
RESULTS
The literature search yielded 674 articles of which 36 were included for the meta-analysis. There were no difference in the endpoints between the two study interventions except that PN resulted in more infection when compared with EN (RR =1.09, 95% CI: 1.01-1.18; P=0.03).
CONCLUSIONS
Other than increased incidence of infection, PN has not resulted in prolonging the survival, increasing nutrition support complications, or major complications when compared with EN in cancer patients.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Infection Control; Neoplasms; Nutritional Support; Parenteral Nutrition; Protein-Energy Malnutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26841813
DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2224-5820.2016.01.01 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Nutrition is an important aspect of management in severe acute pancreatitis. Enteral nutrition has advantages over parenteral nutrition and is the preferred method of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Nutrition is an important aspect of management in severe acute pancreatitis. Enteral nutrition has advantages over parenteral nutrition and is the preferred method of feeding. Enteral feeding via nasojejunal tube is often recommended, but its benefits over nasogastric feeding are unclear. The placement of a nasogastric tube is technically simpler than the placement of a nasojejunal tube.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the mortality, morbidity, and nutritional status outcomes of people with severe acute pancreatitis fed via nasogastric tube versus nasojejunal tube.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS on 17 October 2019 without using any language restrictions. We also searched reference lists and conference proceedings for relevant studies and clinical trial registries for ongoing trials. We contacted authors for additional information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing enteral feeding by nasogastric and nasojejunal tubes in participants with severe acute pancreatitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias of the included studies, and extracted data. This information was independently verified by the other review authors. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane to assess the risk of bias and perform data synthesis. We rated the certainty of evidence according to GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs that randomised a total of 220 adult participants from India, Scotland, and the USA. Two of the trial reports were available only as abstracts. The trials differed in the criteria used to rate the severity of acute pancreatitis, and three trials excluded those who presented in severe shock. The duration of onset of symptoms before presentation in the trials ranged from within one week to four weeks. The trials also differed in the methods used to confirm the placement of the tubes and in what was considered to be nasojejunal placement. We assessed none of the trials as at high risk of bias, though reporting of methods in four trials was insufficient to judge the risk of bias for one or more of the domains assessed. There was no evdence of effect with nasogastric or nasojejunal placement on the primary outcome of mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.17; I = 0%; 5 trials, 220 participants; very low-certainty evidence due to indirectness and imprecision). Similarly, there was no evidence of effect on the secondary outcomes for which data were available. These included organ failure (3 trials, 145 participants), rate of infection (2 trials, 108 participants), success rate (3 trials, 159 participants), complications associated with the procedure (2 trials, 80 participants), need for surgical intervention (3 trials, 145 participants), requirement of parenteral nutrition (2 trials, 80 participants), complications associated with feeds (4 trials, 195 participants), and exacerbation of pain (4 trials, 195 participants). However, the certainty of the evidence for these secondary outcomes was also very low due to indirectness and imprecision. Three trials (117 participants) reported on length of hospital stay, but the data were not suitable for meta-analysis. None of the trials reported data suitable for meta-analysis for the other secondary outcomes of this review, which included days taken to achieve full nutrition requirement, duration of tube feeding, and duration of analgesic requirement after feeding tube placement.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to conclude that there is superiority, inferiority, or equivalence between the nasogastric and nasojejunal mode of enteral tube feeding in people with severe acute pancreatitis.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Length of Stay; Nutritional Status; Pancreatitis; Parenteral Nutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32216139
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010582.pub2 -
Nutrients Feb 2022The appropriate strategy for enteral feeding remains a matter of debate. We hypothesized that continuous enteral feeding would result in higher rates of achieving target... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
The appropriate strategy for enteral feeding remains a matter of debate. We hypothesized that continuous enteral feeding would result in higher rates of achieving target nutrition during the first 7 days compared with intermittent enteral feeding. We conducted an unblinded, single-center, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial involving adult patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit who required mechanical ventilation to determine the efficacy and safety of continuous enteral feeding for critically ill patients compared with intermittent enteral feeding. The primary endpoint was the achievement of ≥80% of the target nutrition requirement during the first 7 days after starting enteral feeding. A total of 99 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (intermittent enteral feeding group, = 49; continuous enteral feeding group, = 50). The intermittent enteral feeding group and continuous enteral feeding group received 227 days and 226 days of enteral feeding, respectively. The achievement of ≥80% of the target nutrition requirement occurred significantly more frequently in the continuous enteral feeding group than in the intermittent enteral feeding group (65.0% versus 52.4%, respectively; relative risk, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.45; = 0.008). For patients undergoing mechanical ventilation, continuous enteral feeding significantly improved the achievement of target nutrition requirements.
Topics: Adult; Critical Illness; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Prospective Studies; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 35277023
DOI: 10.3390/nu14030664 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its prolonged use can lead to complications such as lesions to the nasal wing, chronic sinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia. Another method of infusion, percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG), is generally used when there is a need for enteral nutrition for a longer time period. There is a high demand for PEG in patients with swallowing disorders, although there is no consistent evidence about its effectiveness and safety as compared to NGT.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PEG compared with NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception to January 2014, and contacted the main authors in the subject area. There was no language restriction in the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomised controlled trials comparing PEG versus NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances or dysphagia and indications for nutritional support, with any underlying diseases. The primary outcome was intervention failure (e.g. feeding interruption, blocking or leakage of the tube, no adherence to treatment).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), respectively with the random-effects statistical model and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assumed statistical heterogeneity when I² > 50%.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 randomised controlled studies with 735 participants which produced 16 meta-analyses of outcome data. Meta-analysis indicated that the primary outcome of intervention failure, occurred in lower proportion of participants with PEG compared to NGT (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59, eight studies, 408 participants, low quality evidence) and this difference was statistically significant. For this outcome, we also subgrouped the studies by endoscopic gastrostomy technique into pull, and push and not reported. We observed a significant difference favouring PEG in the pull subgroup (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35, three studies, 90 participants). Thepush subgroup contained only one clinical trial and the result favoured PEG (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.74, one study, 33 participants) techniques. We found no statistically significant difference in cases where the technique was not reported (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.44, four studies, 285 participants).There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.28, 644 participants, nine studies, very low quality evidence), overall reports of any adverse event at any follow-up time point (ITT analysis, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.34), 597 participants, 6 studies, moderate quality evidence), specific adverse events including pneumonia (aspiration) (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.06, 645 participants, seven studies, low quality evidence), or for the meta- analyses of the secondary outcome of nutritional status including weight change from baseline, and mid-arm circumference at endpoint, although there was evidence in favour of PEG for meta-analyses of mid-arm circumference change from baseline (MD 1.16, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.31, 115 participants, two studies), and levels of serum albumin were higher in the PEG group (MD 6.03, 95% CI 2.31 to 9.74, 107 participants).For meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of time on enteral nutrition, there was no statistically significant difference (MD 14.48, 95% CI -2.74 to 31.71; 119 participants, two studies). For meta-analyses of quality of life measures (EuroQol) outcomes in two studies with 133 participants, for inconvenience (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), discomfort (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), altered body image (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18; P = 0.001) and social activities (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18) the intervention favoured PEG, that is, fewer participants found the intervention of PEG to be inconvenient, uncomfortable or interfered with social activities. However, there were no significant differences between the groups for pain, ease of learning to use, or the secondary outcome of length of hospital stay (two studies, 381 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
PEG was associated with a lower probability of intervention failure, suggesting the endoscopic procedure may be more effective and safe compared with NGT. There is no significant difference in mortality rates between comparison groups, or in adverse events, including pneumonia related to aspiration. Future studies should include details of participant demographics including underlying disease, age and gender, and the gastrostomy technique.
Topics: Adult; Deglutition Disorders; Enteral Nutrition; Gastrostomy; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Malnutrition; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 25997528
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008096.pub4