Magnetic Resonance–Guided Nasogastric Feeding Tube Placement for Neonates: A Preclinical Study

Background: Establishing postnatal nutrition delivery is challenging in neonates with immature sucking and swallowing ability. Enteral feeding is the gold standard for such patients, but their small size and fragility present challenges in nasogastric (NG) feeding tube placement. Feeding tubes are typically placed with x‐ray guidance, which provides minimal soft tissue contrast and exposes the baby to ionizing radiation. This research investigates magnetic resonance (MR) guidance of NG feeding tube placement in neonates to provide improved soft tissue visualization without ionizing radiation. Materials and Methods: A novel feeding tube incorporating 3 solenoid coils for real‐time tracking and guidance in the MR environment was developed. The feeding tube was placed 5 times in a rabbit with conventional x‐ray guidance to assess mechanical stability and function. After x‐ray procedures, the rabbit was transferred to a neonatal MR system, and the tube was placed 5 more times. Results: In procedures guided by x‐ray and MR, the feeding tube provided sufficient mechanical strength and functionality to access the esophagus and stomach of the rabbit. MR imaging provided significantly improved soft tissue contrast versus x‐ray, which aided in proper tube guidance. Moreover, MR guidance allowed for real‐time placement of the tube without the use of ionizing radiation. Conclusions: The feasibility and benefits offered by an MR‐guided approach to NG feeding tube placement were demonstrated. The ability to acquire high‐quality MR images of soft tissue without ionizing radiation and a contrast agent, coupled with accurate 3‐dimensional device tracking, promises to have a powerful impact on future neonatal feeding tube placements.     

Small bowel feeding tube placement using an electromagnetic tube placement device: accuracy of tip location

Background: An electromagnetic tube placement device (ETPD) monitors tip position of feeding tubes (FT) during placement in the digestive tract. It helps to avoid airway misplacement and permits positioning into the small bowel (SB). This study compares the overall agreement between FT tip location as determined by an ETPD vs an abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureter, and bladder (KUB). Methods: Using an ETPD, A nurse placed postpyloric FTs in ICU patients. We included all patients in whom the ETPD was used for FT placement. Data were prospectively recorded for 255 days on the rate of successful postpyloric placement, ETPD estimated tip location, and KUB location. Results: 860 tubes were placed in 616 patients, 719 (83.6%) of which recorded for ETPD and KUB. According to the KUB, 81% of tubes were in the SB; however, ETPD suggested 89% were beyond the pylorus. There was moderate agreement beyond what could be attributed to chance between KUB and ETPD tip locations (475 [66.1%], κ score 0.62 [95% confidence interval 0.58–0.67]). More tubes by KUB were distal (134[18.6%]) vs proximal (110[15.3%]) to the suspected location by ETPD (P < .0001. Tubes in or distal to the second half of the duodenum, according to ETPD were rarely in the stomach (<1%). No tubes were proximal to the stomach or placed into the airway. Conclusions: The strong agreement between KUB and ETPD, when tubes were believed to be in the second part of the duodenum or beyond, suggests that KUB is necessary only when the FT tip is suspected to be in the proximal duodenum.     

Placement of a Magnetic Small Bowel Feeding Tube at the Bedside

Background: Current methods of achieving postpyloric enteral access for feeding are fraught with difficulties, which can markedly delay enteral feeding and cause complications. Bedside tube placement has a low success rate, often requires several radiographs to confirm position, and delays feeding by many hours. Although postpyloric enteral tubes can reliably be placed in interventional radiology (IR), this involves greater resource utilization, delays, cost, and inconvenience. We assessed the utility of bedside enteral tube placement using a magnetic feeding tube (Syncro‐BlueTube; Syncro Medical Innovations, Macon, GA, USA) as a means to facilitate initial tube placement. Methods: We recorded the time to insertion, location of tube, success rate, and need for radiographs in a series of patients given magnetic feeding tubes (n = 46) inserted by our hospitalist service over an 8‐month interval. Results: Of the 46 attempted magnetic tube placements, 76% were successfully placed in the postpyloric position, 13% were in the stomach, and 11% could not be placed. In 83% of the magnetic tubes, only 1 radiograph was needed for confirmation. The median time to placement was 12 minutes (range, 4–120 minutes). Conclusion: The use of a magnetic feeding tube can increase the success rate of bedside postpyloric placement, decrease the time to successful placement, and decrease the need for supplemental radiographs and IR.     

Verification of an electromagnetic placement device compared with abdominal radiograph to predict accuracy of feeding tube placement

Background: Use of an electromagnetic placement device (EMPD) facilitates placement of feeding tubes at the bedside. Standard practice for verification of feeding tube placement is via radiographic confirmation. The purpose of this research study was to assess the accuracy of placement of small‐bore feeding tubes (SBFTs) as determined by EMPD interpretation compared with that of abdominal radiograph verification by a radiologist. Methods: This multicenter prospective study enrolled patients requiring bedside feeding tube placement. SBFTs were placed by an experienced investigator using the EMPD. Two abdominal radiographs were then obtained: one after initial SBFT placement and an additional radiograph after injection of contrast. Documentation of location based on clinician interpretation using the EMPD was then compared with radiologist interpretation. Results: The final sample size was 194 patients, including 18 pediatric patients. Patient age ranged from 12 days to 102 years. Median time for tube placement was 12 minutes. Of the 194 patients, only 1 patient had data showing discrepancies between the original EMPD verification and the final abdominal radiograph interpretation, providing a 99.5% agreement. No patient experienced complications during SBFT placement, and 15 patients had inadvertent airway placement that was avoided with the use of the EMPD. Conclusions: There was a high percentage of agreement between EMPD and radiologic interpretation after contrast injection. The EMPD aided in avoiding inadvertent airway placement, with no patient complications. This device can be used safely at the bedside to facilitate placement of feeding tubes, leading to the delivery of early enteral nutrition.     

One‐Step Insertion of Low‐Profile Gastrostomy in Pediatric Patients vs Pull Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy

Background: Standard care for initiation of enteral feeding in children has been pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (pull‐PEG). As an alternative to pull‐PEG, a 1‐step endoscopic procedure for inserting a low‐profile gastrostomy tube “button” has been developed that allows initial placement of a balloon‐retained device. This report presents outcomes of metrics used to compare button placement with pull‐PEG in a pediatric population. Methods: Data were generated from procedural experiences of surgeons on pediatric patients (n = 374) with a variety of clinical indications for gastrostomy. Study population ages ranged from 6 days to 16 years, while weights were from 2–84 kg. Results: The button was successfully placed by the 1‐step procedure in 98% of the respective study population, and median procedural times were 20 and 15 minutes for button and pull‐PEG placements, respectively. Median times to first feeds were equivalent for the 1‐step procedure and pull‐PEG (6 hours), while times to first nutrition feeds were 12.5 and 10 hours, respectively. Stoma site complications within each study group were similar. Healthy stoma proportions were 65.2% and 73.2% in the 1‐step procedure and pull‐PEG groups, respectively, at first follow‐up. Conclusions: Similar study outcomes between the 1‐step procedure and pull‐PEG groups suggest that the former is a feasible alternative to pull‐PEG for initial tube placement in children. The 1‐step method involves a single procedure and reduces patient exposure to anesthesia, operating room time, and the potential for complications compared with a pull‐PEG requirement for multiple procedures.     

Establishing Early Enteral Nutrition With the Use of Self‐Advancing Postpyloric Feeding Tube in Critically Ill Children

Introduction: Early nutrition support is an integral part of the care of critically ill children. Early enteral nutrition (EN) improves nitrogen balance and prevents bacterial translocation and gut mucosal atrophy. Adequate EN is often not achieved as gastric feeds are not tolerated and placing postpyloric feeding tubes can be difficult. Spontaneous transpyloric passage of standard feeding tubes without endoscopic intervention or use of anesthesia can range from 30%?80%. The authors report on their experience with a 14Fr polyurethane self‐advancing jejunal feeding tube in a pediatric population. These tubes have been used in the adult population with success, but to the authors’ knowledge, there have been no reports of its use in the pediatric age group. Case Series: The authors present 7 critically ill patients 8–19 years old, admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit, in whom prolonged recovery, inability to tolerate gastric feeds, and dependence on ventilator were predicted at the outset. The jejunal feeding tube was successfully placed on first attempt at the bedside in all 7 patients within the first 24 hours without the use of a promotility agent or endoscopic intervention. Nutrition goal achieved within 48 hours of feeding tube placement was reported for each patient. This case series demonstrates that children fed via the small bowel reached their nutrition goal earlier and did not require parenteral nutrition. Conclusion: The self‐advancing jejunal feeding tube can be used effectively to establish early EN in critically ill children.     

Feeding Tube Insertion and Placement Confirmation Using Electromagnetic Guidance: A Team Review

Background

Challenges for bedside placement of small‐bore feeding tube (SBFT) include iatrogenic injury, multiple exposures to x‐rays, and prolonged placement times. In 2011, the study facility began a feeding tube placement team (FTPT) using the CORTRAK system (CS) in the adult intensive care unit (ICU) and medical‐surgical populations. In 2013, a protocol was implemented using the CS to determine final SBFT location.

Methods

Serial retrospective reviews were done of patients with SBFT placement by the FTPT during July 2011–December 2012 and 2015. Measures included pulmonary deviation, tube location, placement agreement beyond chance for CS tracing and confirmation radiography (CR), x‐ray frequency, and placement time intervals.

Results

A total of 6290 SBFT placements were completed for 4239 patients. First‐attempt SBFT locations were 12.78% gastric, 13.39% first through fourth portion of duodenum, and 73.83% ligament of Treitz/jejunum, with zero placements in esophagus or lung. In 2015, staff avoided 68 lung placements by recognizing proximal pulmonary deviation. X‐ray preprotocol vs protocol (mean [SD]: 1.02 [0.15] vs 0.26 [0.44]) resulted in 74% x‐ray reduction and cost avoidance of $346,000. Time intervals (mean [SD]; N = 6290) were 14.90 (12.74) minutes for insertion, 46.04 (13.80) minutes for placement event, and 3.85 (2.23) hours for consult conclusion. Agreement for n = 1692 placements was 85.28%, with k score of 0.622 (95% confidence limit: 0.582, 0.661; P = .0005).

Conclusions

Team management of SBFT placement using the CS optimizes patient safety, standardizes practice, and decreases cost. Using the CS to determine final SBFT location is a safe alternative to CR.     

Implementation of an electromagnetic imaging system to facilitate nasogastric and post-pyloric feeding tube placement in patients with and without critical illness

Background:  Artificial nutrition support is required to optimise nutritional status in many patients. Traditional methods of placing feeding tubes may incur clinical risk and financial costs. A technique facilitating placement of nasogastric and post-pyloric tubes via electromagnetic visual guidance may reduce the need for X-ray exposure, endoscopy time and the use of parenteral nutrition. The present study aimed to audit use of such a system at initial implementation in patients within an acute NHS Trust.
Methods:  A retrospective review was undertaken of dietetic and medical records for the first 14 months of using the Cortrak® system. Data were collected on referral origin, preparation of the patient prior to insertion, placement success rates and need for X-ray. Cost analysis was also performed.
Results:  Referrals were received from primary consultants or consultant intensivists, often on the advice of the dietitian. Fifty-nine percent of patients received prokinetic therapy at the time of placement. Thirty-nine tube placements were attempted. Sixty-nine percent of referrals for post-pyloric tube placement resulted in successful placement. X-ray films were requested for 22% of all attempted post-pyloric placements. Less than half of nasogastric tubes were successfully passed, although none of these required X-ray confirmation. The mean cost per tube insertion attempt was £111.
Conclusions:  This system confers advantages, particularly in terms of post-pyloric tube placement, even at this early stage of implementation. A reduction in clinical risk and cost avoidance related to X-ray exposure, the need for endoscopic tube placement and parenteral nutrition have been achieved. The implementation of this system should be considered in other centres.     

Warfarin Bioavailability With Feeding Tubes and Enteral Formula

Background: Earlier literature showed reduced efficacy of warfarin when co‐administered with enteral nutrition formulas through feeding tubes. This study used an in vitro model for gastric administration of warfarin through a feeding tube to evaluate potential causes for reduced warfarin absorption when administered through feeding tubes. Methods: There were 2 phases of the study. The first phase used an artificial stomach model with or without the infusion of enteral nutrition formula. Warfarin was added to the contents either directly into the vessel or passed through a feeding tube. Warfarin tablet dissolution was compared to the injectable formulation, which served as a control. The second phase used chopped feeding tube material added to beakers containing warfarin in increasing amounts. Results: Warfarin injection and tablet formulations showed decreased solubility when combined with acid. The warfarin solubility was higher when enteral formula was added. Warfarin concentration dropped by 35% when the drug was passed through a feeding tube, as opposed to added directly to the flask. In the second study, the warfarin levels were lower in the beakers containing feeding tubes. Doubling the amount of warfarin added did not raise levels to that of the initial dissolved. Doubling the amount of feeding tube material further reduced the concentration dissolved. Conclusions: Feeding‐tube administration compromises the total amount of warfarin reaching patients. It appears, from this in vitro study, that the mechanism of the interaction of warfarin may be a result of direct binding to the feeding tube.     

Post‐pyloric feeding tube placement in critically ill patients: Extending the scope of practice for Australian dietitians

Aim

To determine whether the placement of a post‐pyloric feeding tube (PPFT) can be taught safely and effectively to a critical care dietitian.

Methods

This is a prospective observational study conducted in an adult intensive care unit (ICU). The intervention consisted of 19 attempts at post‐pyloric intubation by the dietitian. The 10 ‘learning’ attempts were performed by the dietitian under the direction of an experienced (having completed in excess of 50 successful tube placements) user. A subsequent nine ‘consolidation’ attempts were performed under the responsibility of the intensive care consultant on duty. The primary outcome measures were success (i.e. tip of the PPFT being visible in or distal to the duodenum on X‐ray) and time (minutes) to PPFT placement. Patients were observed for adverse events per standard clinical practice.

Results

A total of 19 post‐pyloric tube placements were attempted in 18 patients (52 (23–70) years, ICU admission diagnoses: trauma n = 4; respiratory failure n = 3; and burns, pancreatitis and renal failure n = 2 each). No adverse events occurred. Most (75%) patients were sedated, and mechanically ventilated. Prokinetics were used to assist tube placement in 11% (2/19) of attempts, both of which were successful. Placement of PPFT was successful in 58% (11/19) of attempts. Whilst training, the success rate was 40% (4/10) compared with 78% (7/9) once training was consolidated (P = 0.17). In the successful attempts, the mean time to placement was 11.0 minutes (3.9–27.1 minutes).

Conclusions

A dietitian can be trained to safely and successfully place PPFT in critically ill patients.     

Treating Delayed Gastric Emptying in Critical Illness

Background: We describe experience using the Cortrak nasointestinal feeding tube and prokinetics in critically ill patients with delayed gastric emptying. Methods: Patient cohorts fed via a Cortrak electromagnetically guided nasointestinal tube (EGNT) or 14 French‐gauge nasogastric tube plus prokinetics were retrospectively compared. Results: Of 69 EGNT placements in 62 patients, 87% reached the small intestine. The median percentage of the enteral nutrition goal increased from 19% pre‐EGNT to 80%–100% between days 1 and 10 post‐insertion and was greater than in 58 patients prescribed metoclopramide (40%–87%: days 1–2, 5–7, P ≤ .018) or 38 patients prescribed erythromycin (48%–98%; days 1 and 5, P < .0084). Up to day 10, the cumulative feeding days lost were lower for EGNT (1.06) than for metoclopramide (2.6, P < .02) or erythromycin (3.1, P < .02). The EGNT group had a lower use of prokinetics and lower treatment cost. Conclusion: Most bedside EGNT placements succeed and, compared to nasogastric feeding plus prokinetics, increase enteral nutrition delivery and reduce both cumulative feeding days lost and prokinetic use.     

Self‐Insertion of a Nasogastric Tube for Home Enteral Nutrition

Background: Enteral tube feeding can be a source of discomfort and reluctance from patients. We evaluated for the first time the tolerability of self‐insertion of a nasogastric (NG) tube for home enteral nutrition (EN). Materials and Methods: All patients requiring enteral tube feeding for chronic diseases were enrolled in a therapeutic patient education (TPE) program at Nancy University Hospital. Results: In our department, between November 2008 and August 2012, 66 patients received EN with an NG tube. Twenty‐nine of 66 had self‐insertion of the NG tube (median age, 44 years), 17 had an anatomical contraindication, and 20 were excluded because of cognitive disability or language barrier or refusal. Twenty‐eight of 29 patients completed the TPE program. One patient died of pancreatic cancer in palliative care during the study. Median follow‐up was 20 months (interquartile range [IQR], 4–31). Median gain weight was 3.1 kg (IQR, 1.8–6.0) (P = .0002). Median duration of self‐insertion of the NG tube was 3 months (IQR, 2–5), and it was well tolerated by all 29 patients. Two patients described minor adverse events: abdominal pain and nausea for 1 patient and epistaxis leading to temporary discontinuation of EN for another patient. A group of 10 consecutive patients previously had a long‐term NG tube for EN. If they had the choice between a self‐inserted NG tube and a long‐term NG tube, all 10 patients reported they would prefer to start again with the self‐inserted NG tube. Conclusion: This pilot study suggests that self‐insertion of an NG tube may be efficacious and well tolerated in patients receiving EN for chronic conditions.     

Laparoscopic‐Assisted Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy

Background/Purpose: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a simplified catheter placement procedure for alimentation. Although the endoscopic approach to gastrostomy tube placement is a safe and well‐tolerated procedure in most patients, the PEG procedure is difficult in elderly patients disabled since childhood who have severe scoliosis and malpositioning of the stomach. We describe a simple and effective laparoscopic‐assisted PEG (LAPEG) technique that can be used for catheter placement in severely disabled patients. Methods: Thirteen severely disabled patients aged 14–57 years underwent gastrostomy tube placement with the LAPEG technique. After general anesthesia was achieved, an endoscope was placed into the stomach. Then, a 5‐mm camera port was inserted at the umbilicus, and a 3‐mm working port was inserted to identify and lift the optimal site for gastrostomy tube placement. After the 4‐point fixation of the stomach, the 20‐Fr gastrostomy tube was placed under endoscopic and laparoscopic observation. Results: All patients tolerated the procedure well, and there were no major complications. The procedure was successful, and all patients could feed via the tube. Conclusions: Elderly disabled patients who have been bedridden since childhood often have severe scoliosis and malpositioning of the stomach. Our LAPEG procedure is effective, well tolerated, and safe for gastrostomy tube placement in such elderly patients.     

Frequency of Aspirating Gastric Tubes for Patients Receiving Enteral Nutrition in the ICU

Background: Enteral nutrition (EN) tolerance is often monitored by aspirating stomach contents by syringe at prescribed intervals. No studies have been conducted to assess the most appropriate time interval for aspirating gastric tubes. We compared gastric tube aspirations every 4 hours (usual care) with a variable regimen (up to every 8 hours aspirations). Methods: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrolled patients who stayed in the intensive care unit (ICU) for >48 hours, had a gastric tube, and were likely to receive EN for 3 or more days. Patients were randomized (computer‐generated randomization) to either the control (every 4 hours) or intervention group (variable regimen). The primary outcome was number of gastric tube aspirations per day from randomization until EN was ceased or up to 2 weeks postrandomization. Results: Following Institutional Ethics Committee approval, 357 patients were recruited (control group, n = 179; intervention group, n = 178). No differences were found in age, sex, worst APACHE II score, or time to start of EN. In the intention‐to‐treat analysis, the intervention group had fewer tube aspirations per day (3.4 versus 5.4 in the control group, P < .001). Vomiting/regurgitation was increased in the intervention group (2.1% versus 3.6%, P = .02). There were no other differences in complications. Conclusion: This is the first RCT to examine the frequency of gastric tube aspirations. The frequency of gastric tube aspirations was reduced in the variable‐regimen group with no increase in risk to the patient. Reducing the frequency of aspirations saves nursing time, decreases risk of contamination of feeding circuit, and minimizes risk of body fluid exposure.     

Volume‐Based Feeding in the Critically Ill Patient

Introduction: Critically ill patients placed on enteral nutrition (EN) are usually underfed. A volume‐based feeding (VBF) protocol designed to adjust the infusion rate to make up for interruptions in delivery should provide a greater volume of EN than the more common fixed hourly rate‐based feeding (RBF) method. Methods: This single‐center, randomized (3:1; VBF/RBF) prospective study evaluated critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation expected to receive EN for ≥3 days. Once goal rate was achieved, the randomized feeding strategy was implemented. In the VBF group, physicians used a total goal volume of feeds to determine an hourly rate. For the RBF group, physicians determined a constant hourly rate of infusion to meet goal feeds. Results: Sixty‐three patients were enrolled in the study with a mean age of 52.6 years (60% male). Six patients were excluded after randomization because of early extubation. The VBF group (n = 37) received 92.9% of goal caloric requirements with a mean caloric deficit of ?776.0 kcal compared with the RBF group (n = 20), which received 80.9% of goal calories (P = .01) and a caloric deficit of ?1933.8 kcal (P = .01). Uninterrupted EN was delivered for 51.7% of all EN days in VFB patients compared with 54.5% in RBF patients. On days when feeding was interrupted, VFB patients overall received a mean 77.6% of goal calories (while RBF patients received 61.5% of goal calories, P = .001). No vomiting, regurgitation, or feeding intolerance occurred due to VBF. Conclusions: A VBF strategy is safe and improves delivery to better meet caloric requirements than the standard more commonly used rate‐based strategy.     

Bedside placement of small bowel feeding tubes in hospitalized patients: a new role for the dietitian

OBJECTIVE: The benefits of enteral nutrition when compared with parenteral nutrition are well established. However, provision of enteral nutrition may not occur for several reasons, including lack of optimal feeding access. Gastric feeding is easier to initiate, but many hospitalized patients are intolerant to gastric feeding, although they can tolerate small bowel feeding. Many institutions rely on costly methods for placing small bowel feeding tubes. Our goal was to evaluate the effectiveness of a hospital-developed protocol for bedside-blind placement of postpyloric feeding tubes. METHODS: The Surgical Nutrition Service established a protocol for bedside placement of small bowel feeding tubes. The protocol uses a 10- or 12-French, 110-cm stylet containing the feeding tube; 10 mg of intravenous metoclopramide; gradual tube advancement followed by air injection and auscultation; and an abdominal radiograph for tube position confirmation. In a prospective manner, consults received by the surgical nutrition dietitian for feeding tube placements were followed consecutively for a 10-mo period. The registered dietitian recorded the number of radiograph examinations, the final tube position, and the time it took to achieve tube placement. RESULTS: Because all consults were included, feeding tube placements occurred in surgical and medical patients in the intensive care unit and on the ward. Of the 135 tube placements performed, 129 (95%) were successfully placed postpylorically, with 84% (114 of 135) placed at or beyond D3. Average time for tube placement was 28 min (10 to 90 min). One radiograph was required for 92% of the placements; eight of 135 (6%) required two radiographs. No acute complications were associated with the tube placements. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients can receive timely enteral feeding with a cost-effective feeding tube placement protocol. The protocol is easy to implement and can be taught to appropriate medical team members through proper training and certification.     

Fat‐Modified Enteral Formula Improves Feeding Tolerance in Critically Ill Patients: A Multicenter,Single‐Blind,Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Improvement of fat digestion and absorption was supposed to relieve feeding intolerance. This trial aimed to evaluate the effect of a fat‐modified enteral formula on feeding tolerance in critically ill patients. Materials and Methods: This trial was conducted in 7 hospitals in China. In total, 144 intensive care unit (ICU) patients with estimated need of enteral nutrition (EN) for at least 5 days were randomly given fat‐modified enteral formula containing medium‐chain triglycerides (MCT), carnitine, and taurine (interventional feed group, n = 71) or standard enteral formula (control feed group, n = 73). EN intake, feeding intolerance (diarrhea, vomiting, gastric retention, and abdominal distension) and outcomes (mechanical ventilator‐free days of 28 days, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and in‐hospital mortality) were collected. Results: Daily calories and protein intake were increased in the interventional feed group compared with the control feed group (P < .01). Total incidence of feeding intolerance was 42.3% in the interventional feed group and 65.7% in the control feed group (P < .001). Daily incidence of feeding intolerance was 11.3%, 18.3%, 14.1%, 25.4%, and 26.1% in the interventional feed group and 31.5%, 32.9%, 34.2%, 34.2%, and 30.4% in the control feed group from study days 1–5 (P = .0083). Incidence of feeding intolerance without abdominal distention was 32.9% in the interventional feed group and 49.3% in the control feed group (P = .047), while the incidence of abdominal distension was 26.8% in the interventional feed group and 43.8% in the control feed group (P = .03). No significant differences existed in outcomes between the 2 groups. Conclusions: The fat‐modified enteral formula containing MCT, carnitine, and taurine may improve feeding tolerance in critically ill patients.     

Outcomes of Infants With Home Tube Feeding: Comparing Nasogastric vs Gastrostomy Tubes

Background: The aim of this study was to determine the tube‐related complications and feeding outcomes of infants discharged home from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) with nasogastric (NG) tube feeding or gastrostomy (G‐tube) feeding. Materials and Methods: We performed a chart review of 335 infants discharged from our NICU with home NG tube or G‐tube feeding between January 2009 and December 2013. The primary outcome was the incidence of feeding tube–related complications requiring emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, or deaths. Secondary outcome was feeding status at 6 months postdischarge. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. Results: There were 322 infants discharged with home enteral tube feeding (NG tube, n = 84; G‐tube, n = 238), with available outpatient data for the 6‐month postdischarge period. A total of 115 ED visits, 28 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths were due to a tube‐related complication. The incidence of tube‐related complications requiring an ED visit was significantly higher in the G‐tube group compared with the NG tube group (33.6% vs 9.5%, P < .001). Two patients died due to a G‐tube–related complication. By 6 months postdischarge, full oral feeding was achieved in 71.4% of infants in the NG tube group compared with 19.3% in the G‐tube group (P < .001). Type of feeding tube and percentage of oral feeding at discharge were significantly associated with continued tube feeding at 6 months postdischarge. Conclusion: Home NG tube feeding is associated with fewer ED visits for tube‐related complications compared with home G‐tube feeding. Some infants could benefit from a trial home NG tube feeding.     

Web-based teaching module improves success rates of postpyloric positioning of nasoenteric feeding tubes

Background: Bedside protocols improve success rates of postpyloric nasoenteric tube (NET) placement by nutrition teams and experienced individuals. However, many hospitals require novice practitioners to perform these procedures and often choose fluoroscopy, endoscopy, or newer alternative devices to achieve success. Little is known about the ability to train inexperienced practitioners or the effectiveness of the methods used to implement these protocols. Web‐based learning is a potential tool to improve knowledge and procedural skills. The authors created a self‐directed Web‐based teaching module (WBTM) to educate and standardize placement of postpyloric NETs. Methods: Forty‐three first‐, second‐, or third‐year residents or medical or physician assistant students took pretests for knowledge and confidence surveys, viewed the WBTM, placed NET at the bedside, then took a posttest and confidence survey while awaiting confirmation of tube position by abdominal radiograph. Success was acknowledged if the tip of the NET was beyond the pylorus. A retrospective chart review was used to determine a historical success rate, which was used as a control. Results: Knowledge and confidence significantly improved. Overall success rate of postpyloric NET placement for all participants on first attempt was 74.4% vs 46.7% in the control (P = .005). Improvement occurred in all subgroups, including those with no prior experience, who were successful 70.4% of the time (P = .009). Conclusions: This WBTM is simple to implement, inexpensive, and resource efficient. The improvement in postpyloric NET placement, especially among novice practitioners, demonstrates the benefit and applicability of this method of standardized education.