Decision-making for enteral feeding administration: the why behind where and how

Placement of Nasogastric Feeding Tube and Postinsertion Care Review

Insertion and postinsertion care of enteral nasogastric feeding tubes are common procedures in the United States, with more than 1.2 million temporary nasogastric feeding tubes inserted annually. Although there are some evidence-based practice guidelines and recommendations for care of these tubes, variation in practice still exists. Additional research is needed to determine the best methodology for insertion and confirmation of nasogastric feeding tubes. Routine competency and training on feeding tube insertion, enteral nutrition, and postinsertion care is crucial to prevent patient safety events. Variable results have been reported with different technologies; however, radiographic confirmation remains the criterion standard. It is important that health care institutions develop standardized procedures for insertion and confirmation on the basis of evidence-based practices to minimize risks and complications from temporary nasogastric feeding tubes.

[Surgical access routes in enteral nutrition]

There are many known routes of access to the digestive tract for enteral nutrition (EN) and significant advances have been made in recent years. Administration techniques and nutritional products have also improved. Placement of these systems may be temporary or permanent. Indications often overlap. If feasible, the enteral route is preferred over the parenteral route. When enteral nutrition will last < or = 6 weeks, nasoenteral tubes are the best option. In NE > or = 6 weeks, enterostomy tubes are indicated and the procedure of choice is percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Postpyloric access should be considered in patients with a high risk of aspiration. Finally, needle catheter jejunostomy during interventions in the upper gastrointestinal tract is the ideal technique for initiating early EN. All these techniques continue to be valid and the choice of procedure will be determined by the patient's clinical status and the experience of the team. The present article is divided into two parts. In the first part, surgical access techniques for EN, their indications and contraindications and the most frequent complications related to the technique, the care of the stoma and the intubation material are analyzed. In the second part, we report data from our personal experience of the various techniques we have performed and describe the patients, results and complications. A total of 287 procedures were performed: 48 surgical gastrostomies, 40 using the technique of Fontan or Stamm, and 8 Janeway gastrostomies; 27 of these procedures were permanent. There were 169 jejunostomy catheters, with a mean dwelling time of 29.05 +/- 21.9 days, and 72 double lumen nasojejunal tubes.

Efficacy of Jejunogram after Jejunostomy Insertion

The era of managed care has spawned a national debate over the allocation of health care resources. We hypothesized that routine postjejunostomy jejunogram rarely provides additional clinical information or changes patient management and, therefore, is unwarranted. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 128 consecutive patients undergoing feeding jejunostomy tube insertion between January 1995 and December 1996. All patients had postinsertion jejunograms. Eighty-five (66%) of the jejunograms were performed after operative insertion of the jejunostomy, and 43 (33%) were performed after percutaneous reinsertion of a previously placed jejunostomy. Data extracted from the charts include age, sex, indication for jejunogram, length of time prior jejunostomy was in place at time of reinsertion, and results of jejunogram. There were no patients (0%) with misplaced jejunostomy or extravasation of dye, as noted on jejunogram. There were no management changes implemented as a result of jejunogram readings (P < <0.05). The use of routine jejunogram after operative insertion or reinsertion of a prior jejunostomy that has become dislodged or occluded does not alter patient management, incurs unnecessary costs, and, therefore, is unwarranted.