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.     

A randomized trial of endoscopic and fluoroscopic placement of postpyloric feeding tubes in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND: Early postpyloric feeding is considered the accepted method of nutrition support in critically ill patients. Endoscopic and fluoroscopic techniques are associated with the highest percentage of successful placement. The purpose of this study was to compare endoscopic vs fluoroscopic placement of postpyloric feeding tubes in critically ill patients. METHODS: This is a randomized prospective clinical trial. Forty-three patients were randomized to receive feeding tubes by endoscopic or fluoroscopic technique. All procedures were performed at the bedside in the critical care unit. A soft small-bore nonweighted feeding tube was used in all cases. Successful placement was confirmed by either an abdominal x-ray for endoscopic technique or a fluoroscopic radiograph for fluoroscopic technique. RESULTS: Postpyloric feeding tubes were successfully placed in 41 of 43 patients (95%). The success rate using endoscopic technique was 96% (25 of 26), whereas the rate using fluoroscopy was 94% (16 of 17). The average time of successful placement was 15.2 +/- 2.9 (mean +/- SEM) minutes for endoscopic placement and 16.2 +/- 3.2 minutes for fluoroscopic placement, which was not statistically significant (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic and fluoroscopic placement of postpyloric feeding tubes can safely and accurately be performed at the bedside in critically ill patients. Our results showed no significant difference in the success rate or time of placement between endoscopic vs fluoroscopic placement of postpyloric feeding tubes.     

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.     

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.     

How to Promote Bedside Placement of the Postpyloric Feeding Tube

Background: The optimal method of achieving fast, safe, and accurate postpyloric tube placement at the bedside remains controversial. This study investigated whether facilitating techniques of bedside placement would improve the rate of successful placement of postpyloric tubes when compared with the standard technique and whether strategies should be confined to adult or pediatric patients. Methods: We searched electronic databases for eligible literatures that compared different methods of postpyloric tube placement, evaluating the successful rate of postpyloric tube placement. Two reviewers reviewed the quality of the studies and performed data extraction independently. Pairwise and network meta‐analyses were performed to integrate the efficacy. Results: Fourteen clinical trials involving 753 patients were included. Pairwise meta‐analyses demonstrated that prokinetic agents (odds ratio [OR], 2.263; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.140–4.490; P = .02) were associated with a higher success rate as compared with the standard technique, and gastric air insufflation was associated with a higher success rate as compared with prokinetic agents (OR, 3.462; 95% CI, 1.63–7.346; P = .001) in adult patients. In network analyses, prokinetic agents and gastric air insufflation were also consistently associated with a higher success rate in adult patients. Trend analyses of rank probabilities revealed gastric air insufflation had the cumulative probability of being the most efficacious strategy (78%), especially in adult patients (88%). Conclusions: Gastric air insufflation seems to be clinically better for promoting bedside placement of postpyloric feeding tubes in adults. Clinicians should no longer use prokinetic agents in pediatric patients or patients without impaired motility.     

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.     

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.     

Placement of Nasoenteral Feeding Tubes Using Magnetic Guidance: Retesting a New Technique

Objective: To study a new technique of intubating the small bowel using a newly developed nasoenteral feeding tube fitted with a magnet in its tip and guided for placement with an external magnet.

Methods: The study was performed in medical and surgical wards of a university-affiliated Department of Veterans Affairs hospital on 42 patients referred by their attending physicians for tube placement. The newly designed feeding tube was inserted per nares into the stomach using traditional technique. As the tube was advanced, movement of the hand-held steering magnet was designed to guide the tip of the magnetic nasoenteral tube along the lesser curvature of the stomach, through the pyloric sphincter, and into the duodenum. Portable abdominal radiography confirmed the anatomic location of the tube tip.

Results: Fifty-one intubations were performed on 42 subjects. In 45 intubations (88%), tubes passed into the duodenum. Twenty-seven (53%) met criteria for optimal placement in the second portion of the duodenum or distally. Six of 11 tubes (55%) that were not optimally placed were advanced to the distal duodenum on repositioning. Median procedure time for the initial intubations was 30 minutes (interquartile range 15–40). Median procedure time for last 10 intubations improved to 13 minutes (interquartile range 5–20). No complications were related to the procedure.

Conclusions: Enteral feeding tube placement using external magnetic guidance is a promising, novel technique which is deserving of further study.     

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.     

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.     

Influence of unclogging agents on the surface state of enteral feeding tubes

Background: Despite standardized prevention procedures, recalcitrant clogging of enteral feeding tubes is observed, which requires recourse to varied unclogging agents. Some of these agents have proved effective in routine use, but their impact on the surface state of the tube materials has never been studied. In this work, the authors tested the impact of different unclogging agents on the materials used for these tubes (polyurethane and silicone). Methods: Enteral feeding tubes were placed in contact with different agents in vitro, and the surface state of the material was analyzed using 2 different methods: infrared spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy. To assess the surface state of the silicone and polyurethane tubes, negative controls (undamaged tubes) and positive controls (deliberately damaged tubes) were used for each type. Results: The infrared spectroscopy method did not reveal any damage to the surface of either the silicone or the polyurethane tubes with either treatment. The test results by scanning electron microscopy showed that orange juice, pineapple juice, and cola had no detrimental action on the tube biomaterials under current conditions of clinical practice. Conclusions: Although some studies have advocated using polyurethane tubes to administer medication, silicone appears to be less vulnerable to damage by the agents tested.     

Dual‐Purpose Gastric Decompression and Enteral Feeding Tubes Rationale and Design of Novel Nasogastric and Nasogastrojejunal Tubes

Background: The importance of early postoperative nutrition in surgical patients and early institution of enteral nutrition in intensive care unit (ICU) patients have recently been highlighted. Unfortunately, institution of enteral feeding in both groups of patients often has to be postponed due to delayed gastric emptying and the need for gastric decompression. The design of current polyvinylchloride (PVC) gastric decompression tubes (Salem Sump [Covidien, Mansfield, MA] in the United States; Ryles [Penine Health Care Ltd, Derby, UK] in the United Kingdom and Europe) make them unsuitable for their subsequent use as either nasogastric enteral feeding tubes or for continued gastric decompression during postpyloric enteral feeding. To overcome these problems, we have designed a range of polyurethane (PU) dual‐purpose gastric decompression and enteral feeding tubes that include 2 nasogastric tubes (double lumen to replace Salem Sump; single lumen to replace Ryles). Two novel multilumen nasogastrojejunal tubes (triple lumen for the United States; double lumen for the United Kingdom and Europe) complete the range. By using PU, a given internal diameter (ID) and flow area can be incorporated into a lower outside diameter (OD) compared with that achieved with PVC. The ID and lumen and flow area of an 18Fr (OD 6.7 mm) PVC Salem Sump can be incorporated into a 14Fr (OD 4.7 mm) PU tube. The design of aspiration/infusion ports of current PVC and PU tubes invites occlusion by gastrointestinal mucosa and clogging by mucus and enteral feed. To overcome this, we have designed long, single, widened, smooth, and curved edge ports with no “dead space” to trap mucus or curdled diet. Involving up to 214° of the circumference, these ports have up to 11 times the flow areas of the aspiration ports of current PVC tubes. Conclusion: The proposed designs will lead to the development of dual‐purpose nasogastric and nasojejunal tubes that will significantly improve the clinical and nutrition care of postoperative and ICU patients.     

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.     

Examination of Accuracy in the Assessment of Gastric Residual Volume

Background. Increased gastric content from enteral nutrition intolerance is thought to place patients at risk for pulmonary aspiration. Although considered a questionable practice, blind gastric tube aspiration is the most common approach to measure gastric content. This simulated study evaluated the accuracy of residual volume (RV) assessment via tube aspirations made from known volumes by controlling the syringe pull technique, feeding tube properties, fluid viscosity, and placement of tubes in the fluid. Materials and Methods. This study was conducted in a metrology laboratory. Aspirates were obtained using a force measurement test system to control force of the syringe pull technique using 3 different procedures (slow 10 inches per minute [ipm], intermittent 10 ipm, and fast 40 ipm). Four different feeding tubes, 10 Fr and 18 Fr, each made of polyurethane and polyvinyl chloride, were placed in varying depths of 100 mL of either water or formula. The effect of fluid viscosity was also examined. Results. Overall, 108 RVs were analyzed using a force measurement test system. Actual content of RV was underestimated 19% on average and varied across tube size and viscosity. Intermittent and slow syringe pull techniques yielded greater aspirate quantities, although neither technique aspirated the full amount of volume available. The 10 Fr feeding tubes yielded larger RVs in more viscous fluid, yet the 18 Fr tubes performed better with fluids of lower viscosity. Conclusions. Based on this simulation, RV assessment does not accurately reflect the total volume of the contents available and, therefore, the clinical utility of this assessment should be further investigated.     

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.     

Efficacy of erythromycin for postpyloric placement of feeding tubes in critically ill children: a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study

BACKGROUND: Erythromycin enhances gastric emptying and has been suggested to facilitate nasoenteric feeding tube placement in adults. Our primary objective was to evaluate the effect of erythromycin on the transpyloric passage of feeding tubes in critically ill children, and second, to evaluate the effect of erythromycin on the distal migration of duodenal feeding tubes. METHODS: Seventy-four children were randomly assigned to receive erythromycin lactobionate (10 mg/kg) IV or equal volume of saline placebo 60 minutes before passage of a flexible weighted tip feeding tube. Abdominal radiographs were obtained 4 hours later to assess tube placement. If the tube was proximal to the third part of the duodenum, two additional doses of erythromycin/placebo were administered 6 hours apart. Those receiving additional doses had repeat radiographs 14 to 18 hours after tube placement. RESULTS: The number of postpyloric feeding tubes was similar in the erythromycin and placebo treated groups 4 hours after tube insertion (23/37 vs 27/37, p = .5). Of those with prepyloric tubes at 4 hours, none in the erythromycin group and 3 in the placebo group had the tube migrate to the postpyloric position by 14 to 18 hours (p < .05). Of those with postpyloric tubes proximal to the third part of the duodenum at 4 hours, additional doses of erythromycin did not cause more tubes to advance further into the intestine than did placebo (p = .6). CONCLUSIONS: Erythromycin does not facilitate transpyloric passage of feeding tubes in critically ill children. The distal migration of duodenal tubes further into the small bowel is also not enhanced by erythromycin.     

Bedside placement of nasojejunal tubes: a randomised-controlled trial of spiral- vs straight-ended tubes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The success rate of unguided nasojejunal feeding tube insertion is low, thus often requiring endoscopic or radiological assistance. The spiral end of the Bengmark nasojejunal tube is supposed to aid post-pyloric placement, but no comparative trial has been performed. METHODS: Patients requiring nasojejunal feeding were randomised to have either Medicina (straight) or Bengmark (spiral) nasojejunal tube placed after stratification into those with normal gastric emptying or clinical evidence of delayed gastric emptying. Nasojejunal tubes were placed at the bedside in a standard fashion without radiological guidance by the same person for pre- and/or post-operative feeding. Bolus intravenous metaclopromide (10mg) was given prior to insertion in the abnormal gastric emptying group. Abdominal radiographs were obtained at 4 and 24h, and the primary end-point was jejunal placement at 24h. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were randomised of which 17 (11 straight, 6 spiral) could not tolerate the nasojejunal tube. Of the 30 remaining patients, 16 had normal gastric emptying. In patients with normal gastric emptying, successful placement at 24h was achieved in 78% (spiral tube), vs 14% (straight tube) (P=0.041). In the abnormal gastric emptying group, success rates were 57% and 0%, respectively (P=0.07). CONCLUSION: Spiral nasojejunal tubes are preferable to straight tubes for bedside unguided post-pyloric feeding in patients with normal gastric emptying.