Successful Identification of Anatomical Markers and Placement of Feeding Tubes in Critically Ill Patients via Camera‐Assisted Technology with Real‐Time Video Guidance

Background: Enteral feeding via feeding tube (FT) provides essential nutrition support to critically ill patients or those who cannot intake adequate nutrition via the oral route. Unfortunately, 1%–2% of FTs placed blindly at bedside enter the airway undetected (as confirmed by x‐ray), where they could result in adverse events. Misplaced FTs can cause complications including pneumothorax, vocal cord injury, bronchopleural fistula, pneumonia, and death. X‐ray is typically performed to confirm FT placement before feeding, but may delay nutrition intake, may not universally identify misplacement, and adds cost and radiation exposure. Methods: A prospective case series was conducted to evaluate a novel FT with a camera to provide real‐time visualization, guiding placement. The primary end point was the clinician's ability to identify anatomical markers in the gastrointestinal tract and/or airway using the camera. Results: The Kangaroo Feeding Tube with IRIS Technology tube was placed in 45 subjects with 1 misplaced tube; 3 placements were postpyloric, with the remainder gastric. Clinicians correctly identified the stomach in 44 of 45 placements at a median depth of 60.0 cm (range 45.0–85.0 cm). A stomach image was obtained in 42 subjects (93.3%). Agreement between camera image and radiographic confirmation of placement was 93% (P = .014) with small deviations in recognizing stomach vs small bowel. No device‐related adverse events occurred. Conclusions: Direct visualization of the stomach using a camera‐equipped FT can assist with FT placement, help avoid misplacements, and with further studies to evaluate the safety of eliminating confirmatory x‐ray before feeding, could potentially preclude the need for radiographic confirmation.     

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.     

Methods and complications of nasoenteral intubation

Nasoenteral intubation is among the most common procedures performed by clinicians across all medical specialties. The most common technique for nasoenteral intubation is blind passage, as it does not require the use of sophisticated or expensive medical equipment. Unfortunately, blind placement too frequently results in trauma and is a source of significant morbidity and mortality. It is apparent that altered mental status, a preexisting endotracheal tube, and critical illness put a patient in a higher risk group for malposition and complications. Nasoenteral intubation should be attempted only with an understanding of the possibility for difficult placement and the potential complications that can arise from trauma or malposition.     

Influence of Age and Type of Underlying Disease on Complications Related to Home Enteral Nutrition

Background: No data about the influence of age and underlying diseases on home enteral nutrition (HEN)–related complications are reported in the literature. Herein, we retrospectively investigated this issue by analyzing HEN‐related complications in a cohort of consecutive patients grouped according to the underlying disease and age. Material and Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 101 patients referring to our team in 2007–2010 to obtain patients’ demographic data, age, nutrition status, duration of HEN treatment, and type of HEN‐related complications. They were divided in cancer and neurologic patients and subgrouped on the basis of their age. HEN‐related complications were expressed as complication rates. Results: Patients with neurological diseases suffered a significantly higher number of complications as compared with cancer patients (P = .04). Age did not significantly influence complication rates. The mechanical complications were the most frequent. The majority of HEN‐related complications were resolved at home. Conclusion: Our data strongly suggest that HEN‐related complications are influenced by underlying diseases and not by age. In neurologic patients, dementia, loss of autonomy, and the different therapies administered by PEG probably play an important role in increasing the number of HEN‐related complications as compared with cancer patients. The most frequent complications can be managed at home, reducing the costs of hospitalizations and discomfort for the patient.     

Feeding Jejunostomy for the Treatment of Severe Hyperemesis Gravidarum: A Case Series

Background: Hyperemesis gravidarum is severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy leading to dehydration, nutrition deficiency, and fetal morbidity and mortality. Treatment must maintain fluid and electrolyte balance and caloric intake. Parenteral nutrition is often attempted; however, complication rates are high. Nutrition via nasoenteric and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes is limited by poor patient tolerance, tube dislodgement, and altered anatomy in pregnancy. Methods: Women with hyperemesis gravidarum who failed standard therapy were offered jejunostomy. All patients underwent surgical jejunostomy in the second trimester. Isotonic tube feeds were administered to a goal caloric factor calculated by the Harris‐Benedict equation with a correction added for pregnancy. Patients were monitored until delivery. Results: Five women underwent jejunostomy placement at our institution between 1998 and 2005. One patient underwent jejunostomy placement twice for consecutive pregnancies. The mean body weight loss from prepregnancy was 7.9% (range, 4.0%–15.9%). Patients underwent jejunostomy placement between 12 and 26 weeks of gestation (median 14 weeks). Twelve to 16 Fr catheters were placed in the proximal jejunum. Maternal weight gain occured in 5 of 6 pregnancies. The mean duration of tube placement was 19 weeks (range, 8–28 weeks). All pregnancies ended with term deliveries (range, 36–40 weeks of gestation). The mean infant birth weight was 2885 g (range, 2270–4000 g). Tube‐related complications were limited to dislodgement in 2 patients in the third trimester. No cases of infection, bleeding, or preterm labor occured. Conclusions: Feeding via jejunostomy is a potentially safe, effective, and well‐tolerated mode of nutrition support therapy in hyperemesis gravidarum.     

Use of small-bore feeding tubes: successes and failures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Early enteral nutrition is the preferred option for feeding patients who cannot meet their nutrient requirements orally. This article reviews complications associated with small-bore feeding tube insertion and potential methods to promote safe gastric or postpyloric placement. We review the available bedside methods to check the position of the feeding tube and identify inadvertent misplacements. RECENT FINDINGS: Airway misplacement rates of small feeding tubes are considerable. Bedside methods (auscultation, pH, aspirate appearance, air bubbling, external length of the tube, etc.) to confirm the position of a newly inserted small-bore feeding tube have limited scientific basis. Radiographic confirmation therefore continues to be the most accurate method to ascertain tube position. Fluoroscopic and endoscopic methods are reliable but costly and are not available in many hospitals. Rigid protocols to place feeding tubes along with new emerging technology such as CO2 colorimetric paper and tubes coupled with signaling devices are promising candidates to substitute for the blind placement method. SUMMARY: The risk of misplacement with blind bedside methods for small-bore feeding tube insertion requires a change in hospital protocols.     

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.     

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.     

Understanding Why Patients Die After Gastrostomy Tube Insertion: A Retrospective Analysis of Mortality

Objectives: To understand the causes of mortality of inpatients receiving a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube compared with a survival curve predicted from a model proposed by Levine et al (2007). Design: A retrospective study of patients receiving a PEG over an 18‐month period. Setting: Royal United Hospital Bath, a district general hospital in the southwest of England. Patients: Fifty‐five cases, with 44 found eligible for inclusion. Interventions: A Levine score was calculated for this cohort. A survival curve after PEG was produced and compared with the Kaplan‐Meier curve predicted by the Levine model. Main Outcome Measures: Mortality over a period of 1 year. Results: The mortality at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months was 16%, 20%, 25%, and 28%, respectively. This matched the predicted death rate from the Levine model closely (Pearson's rank correlation coefficient = 0.96). Conclusions: The authors found that the mortality of patients receiving a PEG followed that predicted for a similar cohort of patients without PEGs in the Levine model. This suggests that the deaths observed were due to underlying comorbidities, can provide a baseline for mortality targets for PEG services, and is useful patient information regarding the risks and benefits of the procedure. The findings demonstrate that PEG does no harm and supports the accepted opinion that nutrition support is associated with a better outcome. Furthermore, they show that most deaths occur within the first month of placement and would support arguments for delaying placement until outcome from the underlying condition is more predictable.     

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.     

Hospital Inpatient Admissions With Dehydration and/or Malnutrition in Medicare Beneficiaries Receiving Enteral Nutrition: A Cohort Study

Background: Enteral nutrition (EN) supports many older and disabled Americans. This study describes the frequency and cost of acute care hospitalization with dehydration and/or malnutrition of Medicare beneficiaries receiving EN, focusing on those receiving home EN. Methods: Medicare 5% Standard Analytic Files were used to determine Medicare spending for EN supplies and the proportion and cost of beneficiaries receiving EN, specifically home EN, admitted to the hospital with dehydration and/or malnutrition. Results: In 2013, Medicare paid $370,549,760 to provide EN supplies for 125,440 beneficiaries, 55% of whom were also eligible for Medicaid. Acute care hospitalization with dehydration and/or malnutrition occurred in 43,180 beneficiaries receiving EN. The most common principal diagnoses were septicemia (21%), aspiration pneumonitis (9%), and pneumonia (5%). In beneficiaries receiving EN at home, >one‐third (37%) were admitted with dehydration and/or malnutrition during a mean observation interval of 231 ± 187 days. Admitted patients were usually hospitalized more than once with dehydration and/or malnutrition (1.73 ± 1.30 admissions) costing $23,579 ± 24,966 per admitted patient, totaling >$129,685,622 during a mean observation interval of 276 ± 187 days. Mortality in the year following enterostomy tube placement was significantly higher for admitted compared with nonadmitted patients (40% vs 33%; P = .05). Conclusion: Acute care hospitalizations with dehydration and/or malnutrition in Medicare beneficiaries receiving EN were common and expensive. Additional strategies to reduce these, with particular focus on vulnerable populations such as Medicaid‐eligible patients, are needed.     

Gastric vs Small Bowel Feeding in Critically Ill Neurologically Injured Patients

Background: To evaluate gastric compared with small bowel feeding on nutrition and clinical outcomes in critically ill, neurologically injured patients. Materials and Methods: International, prospective observational studies involving 353 intensive care units (ICUs) were included. Eligible patients were critically ill, mechanically ventilated with neurological diagnoses who remained in the ICU and received enteral nutrition (EN) exclusively for at least 3 days. Sites provided data, including patient characteristics, nutrition practices, and 60‐day outcomes. Patients receiving gastric or small bowel feeding were compared. Covariates including age, sex, body mass index, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score were used in the adjusted analyses. Results: Of the 1691 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 1407 (94.1%) received gastric feeding and 88 (5.9%) received small bowel feeding. Adequacy of calories from EN was highest in the gastric group (60.2% and 52.3%, respectively, unadjusted analysis; P = .001), but this was not significant in the adjusted model (P = .428). The likelihood of EN interruptions due to gastrointestinal (GI) complications was higher for the gastric group (19.6% vs 4.7%, unadjusted model; P = .015). There were no significant differences in the rate of discontinuation of mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66–1.12; P = .270) or the rate of being discharged alive from the ICU (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.72–1.23; P = .641) and hospital (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.87–1.55; P = .307) after adjusting for confounders. Conclusions: Despite a higher likelihood of EN interruptions due to GI complications, gastric feeding may be associated with better nutrition adequacy, but neither route is associated with better clinical outcomes.     

Use of Temporary Enteral Access Devices in Hospitalized Neonatal and Pediatric Patients in the United States

Background: Temporary enteral access devices (EADs), such as nasogastric (NG), orogastric (OG), and postpyloric (PP), are used in pediatric and neonatal patients to administer nutrition, fluids, and medications. While the use of these temporary EADs is common in pediatric care, it is not known how often these devices are used, what inpatient locations have the highest usage, what size tube is used for a given weight or age of patient, and how placement is verified per hospital policy. Materials and Methods: This was a multicenter 1‐day prevalence study. Participating hospitals counted the number of NG, OG, and PP tubes present in their pediatric and neonatal inpatient population. Additional data collected included age, weight and location of the patient, type of hospital, census for that day, and the method(s) used to verify initial tube placement. Results: Of the 63 participating hospitals, there was an overall prevalence of 1991 temporary EADs in a total pediatric and neonatal inpatient census of 8333 children (24% prevalence). There were 1316 NG (66%), 414 were OG (21%), and 261 PP (17%) EADs. The neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) had the highest prevalence (61%), followed by a medical/surgical unit (21%) and pediatric intensive care unit (18%). Verification of EAD placement was reported to be aspiration from the tube (n = 21), auscultation (n = 18), measurement (n = 8), pH (n = 10), and X‐ray (n = 6). Conclusion: The use of temporary EADs is common in pediatric care. There is wide variation in how placement of these tubes is verified.     

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.     

Peritonitis after gastrostomy tube replacement: a case series and review of literature

Background: The placement of feeding gastrostomy (G) tubes through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) technique has become common because of its simplicity and safety. The majority of the serious complications are reported to occur within a few days of initial tube placement and happen in fewer than 3% of cases. Long‐term reported complications of this procedure include occlusion or breakage of the G‐tube, requiring reinsertion. This report describes the complication of intraperitoneal placement and the development of peritonitis after replacement of an established PEG tube and reviews the pertinent world literature. Methods: A retrospective review of cases of intraperitoneal insertion of replacement G‐tubes was done as well as a Medline search for cases of intraperitoneal insertion of replacement G‐tube or development of peritonitis after replacement tube insertion. Results: Three new cases of inadvertent intraperitoneal insertion of a replacement G‐tube in adult patients with mature tracts are reported. An additional 5 cases have been previously described in adults. Significant morbidity was associated with this complication, and 4 deaths were related to it. Methods used to determine whether the replacement G‐tube was intragastric were not uniform. Conclusions: There have been few reports of intraperitoneal insertion of replacement G‐tubes in patients with mature (>30 days) stoma sites. The cases presented in this report highlight for the clinician the importance of considering this complication, particularly if there are any difficulties with the reinsertion. Prospective studies are needed to determine the frequency of this complication and the optimal protocol for PEG replacement.     

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.     

Pain and Anxiety Experienced by Patients Following Placement of a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy

Background: Abdominal pain following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement is a recognized complication. However, the prevalence and degree of severity of pain are poorly characterized. We assessed abdominal pain and anxiety levels associated with PEG placement in communicative and noncommunicative patients. Methods: A prospective questionnaire assessed patients' anxiety and abdominal pain 1 hour before, 1 hour after, and 24 hours after PEG placement using 11‐point Likert‐type scales. Patients were followed up until pain had resolved. Procedural data, analgesia requirements, and complications were recorded. For analysis, patients were divided into 2 groups: communicative (able to self‐assess) and noncommunicative (clinician assessed). Results: Seventy consecutive patients were assessed. Of the 49 self‐assessed patients, 11 (22%) reported immediate pain, 32 (65%) reported pain at 1 hour (24 mild, 5 moderate, 3 severe), and 40 (82%) reported pain at 24 hours. Pain most commonly lasted between 24 and 48 hours (25 patients). Of the 21 clinician‐assessed patients, only 1 was deemed to have pain, and this was at 24 hours. Four (6%) patients were admitted with pain. There was no relationship between preplacement anxiety scores and postplacement pain scores. Discussion: Abdominal pain after PEG placement pain is common but resolved by 48 hours in most patients. In patients able to communicate, clinicians scored pain lower compared with patients' scores. It is likely that pain is not identified in patients unable to communicate. Patients need to be better informed about the possibility of postprocedural pain and routinely offered access to appropriate analgesia.