Early versus delayed feeding after placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a meta-analysis

Enteral Nutrition Therapy: Historical Perspective, Utilization, and Complications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Enteral nutrition (EN) therapy can provide vital nutrition support for patients with various medical conditions as long as it is indicated and supported by ethical reasoning. This review seeks to offer a detailed account of the history of EN development, highlighting key milestones and recent advances in the field. Additionally, it covers common complications associated with EN and their management.

RECENT FINDINGS

After years of research and development, we have reached newer generations of enteral feeding formulations, more options for enteral tubes and connectors, and a better understanding of EN therapy challenges. Given the availability of many different formulas, selecting a feeding formula with the best evidence for specific indications for enteral feeding is recommended. Initiation of enteral feeding with standard polymeric formula remains the standard of care. Transition to small-bore connectors remains suboptimal. Evidence-based practices should be followed to recognize and reduce possible enteral feeding complications early.

Interdisciplinary Approach to Expedited Outpatient Gastrostomy Tube Placement in Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Single Center Retrospective Study

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

Treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC) can lead to decreased oral intake which often requires gastrostomy tube (g-tube) placement to provide nutritional support. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) consisting of interventional radiology (IR), HNC oncology and surgery, nutrition, and speech language pathology departments implemented an expedited outpatient g-tube placement pathway to reduce hospital stays and associated costs, initiate feeds sooner, and improve communication between care teams. This single center study investigates differences in complications, time to procedure and costs savings with implementing this pathway.

METHODS

142 patients with HNC who underwent elective image guided g-tube placement by IR from 2015 to 2022 were identified retrospectively. 52 patients underwent the traditional pathway, and 90 patients underwent the expedited pathway. Patient demographics, procedure characteristics, periprocedural costs and 90-day complication rates were collected and compared statistically.

RESULTS

The 90-day complication rate was comparable between groups (traditional=32.7%; expedited=22.2%; p-value=0.17). The expedited pathway decreased the time from consult to procedure by 11.1 days (95% CI 7.6 - 14.6; p < 0.001) and decreased charge per procedure by $2940 (95% CI $989-$4891; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A MDT for the treatment of patients with HNC successfully provided enteral nutrition support faster, with fewer associated costs, and in a more patient centered approach than previously done at this institution.

Early Versus Late Feeding After Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Placement in Trauma and Burn

INTRODUCTION

Timing to resume feeds after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement continues to vary among US trauma surgeons. The purpose of this study was to assess differences in meeting nutritional therapy goals and adverse outcomes with early versus late enteral feeding after PEG placement.

METHODS

This retrospective review included 364 trauma and burn patients who underwent PEG placement. Data included patient characteristics, time to initiate feeds, rate feeds were resumed, % feed volume goals on postoperative days 0-7, and complications. Statistical analysis was performed comparing two groups (feeds ≤ 6 h versus > 6 h) and three subgroups (< 4 h, 4-6 h, ≥ 6 h) based on data quartiles. Chi-square/Fisher's exact test, independent-samples t-test, and one-way analysis of variance were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Mean time to initiate feeds after PEG was 5.48 ± 4.79 h. Burn patients received early feeds in a larger proportion. A larger proportion of trauma patients received late feeds. The mean % of goal feed volume met on postoperative day 0 was higher in the early feeding group versus the late (P < 0.001). There were no differences in adverse events, even after subgroup analysis of those who received feeds < 4 h after PEG placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with early initiation of feeds after PEG placement achieve a higher percentage of goals on day 0 without an increased rate of adverse events. Unfortunately, patients routinely fall short of their target tube feeding goals.

A Multicenter Survey of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in 2019 at Korean Medical Institutions

Background/Aims

: This study aimed to review the indications, methods, cooperation, complications, and outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).

Methods

: Questionnaires were sent to 200 hospitals, of which 62 returned their questionnaires, with a response rate of approximately 30%. Descriptive statistics were calculated to analyze the responses to the questionnaires.

Results

: In 2019, a total of 1,052 PEGs were performed in 1,017 patients at 62 hospitals. The main group who underwent PEG was older adult patients with brain disease, particularly stroke. Nutritional supply was an important purpose of the PEG procedure. "The pull method" was the most commonly used for initial PEG insertion. The complications related to PEG were mostly mild, with leakage being the most common. Patients who underwent PEG procedures were primarily educated regarding the post-procedure management and complications related to PEG. Preoperative meetings were skipped at >50% of the institutions. Regarding the cooperation between the nutrition support team (NST) and the physician performing PEG, few endoscopists answered that they cooperated with NST before and after PEG. Moreover, the rate of NST certification obtained by physicians performing PEG and the frequency of attendance at NST-related conferences were relatively low.

Conclusions

: This study shows a similar trend to that found in the previous PEG guidelines. However, it covers new aspects, including team-based work for PEG procedure, nutrition support, and education for patients and guardians. Therefore, each medical institution needs to select an appropriate method considering the medical environment and doctor's abilities.

Immediate-use strategy is as safe and effective as delayed-use strategy following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is the most common enteral access for long-term feeding. The aim of our study is to assess the feasibility and safety of immediate PEG tube use after initial placement.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study between August 2006 and August 2016. Prior to August 2011, tube feedings were delayed for ≥4 h after initial PEG placement, compared with immediate use (<1 h) after August 2011. Primary outcomes were complication rates within 30 days of placement. Secondary outcomes were impact of morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and need for repeat PEG placement.

RESULTS

Our study included 1296 patients during the 10-year period, of which 704 underwent delayed use and 592 underwent immediate use (744 inpatient and 552 outpatient). There were no significant differences between the delayed-use and immediate-use PEG with regard to complications (3.4% vs 4.4%; P = 0.76). Subgroup analysis also reflected no significant differences in complications between inpatient and outpatient groups. For inpatients, there were no substantial differences in inpatient mortality (3.9% vs 3.3%; P = 0.70), mortality within 30 days of discharge (13.8% vs 13.1%; P = 0.15), readmissions (38.2% vs 34.3%; P = 0.23), repeat PEG placement (0.7% vs 1.5%; P = 0.46), and length of stay (13.3 vs 13.9 days; P = 0.99).

CONCLUSION

Patients who received immediate enteral nutrition after PEG tube placement did not have any increased complications, morbidity, or mortality; and it is just as safe when compared with patients who received delayed feeding.

Disease-Related Malnutrition and Enteral Nutrition

There are many misconceptions surrounding the diagnosing and treatment of malnutrition and around feeding people with enteral nutrition (EN). Often the decisions made by clinicians are made from anecdote or guidelines that may be out of date or supported by low-quality evidence. In this article, we will discuss different aspects of diagnosing malnutrition and delve deeper into the science and evidence behind certain recommendations. Our goal is to better equip the reader with the most current data-supported recommendation, such as indications, contraindications, complications of EN, tube and ostomy complications, types and use of specialized enteral formulas, and home management.

When to Discharge a Patient After Endoscopy: A Narrative Review

Video endoscopy is an important modality for the diagnosis and treatment of various gastrointestinal diseases. Most endoscopic procedures are performed as outpatient basis, sometimes requiring sedation and deeper levels of anesthesia. Moreover, advances in endoscopic techniques have allowed invasion into the third space and the performance of technically difficult procedures that require the utmost precision. Hence, formulating strategies for the discharge of patients requiring endoscopy is clinically and legally challenging. In this review, we have discussed the various criteria and scores for the discharge of patients who have undergone endoscopic procedures with and without anesthesia.

Early feeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in trauma and surgical intensive care patients: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients experience frequent interruptions in enteral nutrition(EN). For ventilated patients who undergo percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube(PEG) placement, post-procedure fasting time varies from 1-24hrs, depending on the surgeon's preference. There is no evidence to support prolonged fasting after PEG placement. This study's purpose was to determine if there is an increased complication rate associated with reduced fasting time after PEG.

METHODS

150 adult ventilated trauma and surgical ICU patients at a level I trauma center underwent PEG placement March 2015-May 2018 by one of 6 surgical intensivists. Retrospective review revealed variable post-PEG fasting practices among them: 1 started EN at 1hr, 2 at 4hrs, 2 at 6hrs, and 1 at 24hrs. Time to initiation of EN and complication rates were assessed. Patients were divided into early feeding(<4hrs) and prolonged fasting(≥4hrs) groups.

RESULTS

Median post-procedure fasting time was 5.5hrs. Complications included bleeding(2), infection(1), tube leak(1), feeding intolerance(1) and aspiration(0). The overall complication rate was 3.3%, with feeding intolerance rate 0.7% and aspiration rate 0%. There was no difference in complication rate for early feeding(3.1%) as compared to delayed feeding(3.4%) (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.10-8.52, p = 0.7).

CONCLUSION

Complication rates following PEG placement in ventilated trauma and surgical ICU patients are low and do not change with early feeding <4hr compared to prolonged fasting ≥4hr. Early feeding after PEG is probably safe. With this data, a randomized controlled trial is underway that will provide evidence to support a more consistent practice, thus mitigating a source of EN interruption in a population vulnerable to malnutrition. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

An overview of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in the intensive care unit

Critically ill patients are at increased risk for malnutrition as they often have underlying acute and chronic illness, stress related catabolism, decreased appetite, trauma and ongoing inflammation. Malnutrition is recognized as a leading cause of adverse outcomes, higher mortality, and increased hospital costs. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes provide a safe and effective route to provide supplemental enteral nutrition to these patients. PEG placement has essentially replaced surgical gastrostomy as the modality of choice for longer term feeding in patients. This is a highly prevalent procedure with 160,000 to 200,000 PEG procedures performed each year in the United States. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of current knowledge and practice standards with regards to placement of PEG tube in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). When a patient is considered for a PEG tube, it is important to evaluate the treatment alternatives and identify the best option for each patient. In this review, we provide the advantages and disadvantages of various feeding modalities and devices. We review the indications and contraindications for PEG tube placement as well as the risks of this procedure. We then describe in detail the per-oral pull, per-oral push, and direct percutaneous techniques for PEG tube placement. Additionally, we review the feasibility of having interventional pulmonologists place PEG tubes in the ICU.

Wound care management: tracheostomy and gastrostomy

Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placements are routine procedures performed in the intensive care units (ICUs). They are performed to facilitate care and promote healing. They also help prevent complications from prolonged endotracheal intubation and malnutrition. In most cases, both are performed simultaneously. Physicians performing them require knowledge of local anatomy, tissue and vascular relationships, along with advance bronchoscopy and endoscopy skills. Although PDTs and PEGs are considered relatively low-risk procedures, operators need to have the knowledge and skill to recognize and prevent adverse outcomes. Current published literature on post-procedural care and stoma wound management was reviewed. Available recommendations for the routine care of tracheostomy and PEG tubes are included in this review. Signs and symptoms of early PDT- and PEG-related complications and their management are discussed in detail. These include hemorrhage, infection, accidental decannulation, tube obstruction, clogging, and dislodgement. Rare, life-threatening complications are also discussed. Multidisciplinary teams are needed for improved patient care, and members should be aware of all pertinent care aspects and potential complications related to PDT and PEG placement. Each institute is strongly encouraged to have detailed protocols to standardize care. This review provides a state-of-the-art guidance on the care of patients with tracheostomies and gastrostomies specifically in the ICU setting.

Assessment of complication rates based on time of feeding initiation in radiologically guided gastrostomy tubes: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess the association between complication rate and time to feeding in a cohort of patients undergoing radiologically guided placement of gastrostomy tubes.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted of all patients receiving pull-type and push-type gastrostomy tubes placed by interventional radiologists between January 1st, 2017 and December 31st, 2018 at a single institution. Primary outcomes included procedural and tube-related complications per medical chart review with a follow-up interval of 30 days. Exclusion criteria were enteral nutrition delayed more than 48 hours, no feeding information, and tubes placed for venting (n=20). Overall, 303 gastrostomy tubes (pull-type, n=184; push-type, n=119) were included. The most common indications for placement included head and neck carcinoma for push-type tubes (n=76, 63.9%) and cerebral vascular accident for pull-type tubes (n=78, 42.4%).

RESULTS

In a multiple regression analysis, there was no statistically significant association between complications and time to feeding (p = 0.096), age (p = 0.758), gender (p = 0.127), indication for tube placement (p = 0.206), or type of tube placed (p = 0.437). Average time to initiation of enteral nutrition was 12.3 hours for the pull-type and 21.7 hours for the push-type cohort (p < 0.001). Additional multiple regression analyses of pull-type tubes and push-type tubes separately also did not find any significant association between complications and the above factors (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

There was no statistically significant correlation between time to feed and complications, suggesting that there is no clinical difference between early and late feeding following gastrostomy tube placement.

Early versus late tube feeding initiation after PEG tube placement: Does time to feeding matter?

BACKGROUND

Variation exists in the timing of tube feed initiation after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement. The aim of our study was to review outcomes of early tube feed (ETF) versus late tube feed (LTF) initiation after PEG tube placement.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all trauma patients who underwent PEG tube placement from 1/2014 to 12/2018. ETF was defined as initiation < 24 h and LTF > 24 h after placement. The primary outcome measure was feeding intolerance and secondary outcomes included post-operative complications. All statistical analyses were performed using standard statistical methods (e.g. Pearson's Chi-squared, Fisher's exact and Mann Whitney-U tests).

RESULTS

There were 295 patients (164 ETF and 131 LTF) that received a PEG tube at our level 1 trauma center. There was no difference with feeding intolerance at 12 h (5% vs. 4%; p = 0.88), 24 h (1% vs. 2%; p = 1.00), and 48 h (4% vs. 4%; p = 1.00). There was no difference when comparing intolerance symptoms such as nausea and vomiting (1% vs. 2%; p = 0.79), abdominal tenderness (2% vs. 3%; p = 0.76), high gastric residuals (2% vs. 2%; p = 1.00) and aspiration (0% vs. 2%; p = 0.39). There was no difference when comparing post-operative complications (4% vs. 8%; p = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Early tube feeding after PEG placement is safe and equivalent to late tube feeding in the adult trauma population. Future prospective studies are warranted to establish the optimal timing for initiation of tube feeds after PEG tube placement.

Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients - Part 2: Peri- and post-procedural management. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

ESGE recommends the "pull" technique as the standard method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the direct percutaneous introducer ("push") technique for PEG placement in cases where the "pull" method is contraindicated, for example in severe esophageal stenosis or in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) or esophageal cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the intravenous administration of a prophylactic single dose of a beta-lactam antibiotic (or appropriate alternative antibiotic, in the case of allergy) to decrease the risk of post-procedural wound infection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends that inadvertent insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) into the respiratory tract should be considered a serious but avoidable adverse event (AE).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that each institution should have a dedicated protocol to confirm correct positioning of NGTs placed "blindly" at the patient's bedside; this should include: radiography, pH testing of the aspirate, and end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring, but not auscultation alone.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends confirmation of correct NGT placement by radiography in high-risk patients (intensive care unit [ICU] patients or those with altered consciousness or absent gag/cough reflex).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that EN may be started within 3 - 4 hours after uncomplicated placement of a PEG or PEG-J.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends that daily tube mobilization (pushing inward) along with a loose position of the external PEG bumper (1 - 2 cm from the abdominal wall) could mitigate the risk of development of buried bumper syndrome.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Early versus Delayed Feeding after Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Placement in Children: A Meta-Analysis

Early feeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement is an accepted practice in the treatment of adult patients and the knowledge is clinically extrapolated in the treatment of children. To verify this treatment in children-as there are some specific features of PEG-related practices in children-the present study aimed to review meta-analyses of early feeding (within 4 h) after PEG placement in children. We searched the PubMed database for articles published until July 2020. A quality assessment was performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. Three randomized controlled trials (208 patients) were eligible for inclusion. No patients died within 72 h. Early feeding resulted in little to no difference in the length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD] -7.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] -25.16 to 10.21; I² = 95%) and vomiting events (risk ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.31; I² = 0%). In a subgroup analysis, early feeding without antibiotics reduced the length of hospital stay in one study (MD -21.60, 95% CI -22.86 to -20.34) but early feeding with antibiotics did not affect the length in two studies (MD 0.28, 95% CI -6.49 to 7.06; I² = 0%). Overall, the certainty of the evidence was not very high. In summary, early feeding after PEG placement may be a safe alternative to delayed feeding in children. The findings in children seemed similar to those in adults, while there is a need for further studies that specifically investigate PEG placement-related practices in children.

Outcomes Associated With Early vs Late Initiation of Exclusive Enteral Feeding Regimens Following Laparoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement in the Pediatric Patient

OBJECTIVES

Despite frequent placement of pediatric laparoscopic gastrostomy tubes (GTs), no rigorous evaluation of initial feeding and advancement regimens exists. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine whether early enteral feeding after GT placement is associated with increased symptoms, procedural complications, or length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, the records of all patients at a tertiary care pediatric hospital who had gastrostomy placement were reviewed. Only patients fed exclusively via gastrostomy were included. Feeding was monitored starting with the first postoperative feed and subsequently in 24-hour increments. Adverse events were recorded based on clinical documentation.

RESULTS

A total of 480 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients who started feeds between 24 and 36 hours had a shorter LOS compared with those who started at 36-48 hours (P = .0072) or >48 hours (P < .0001). Patients requiring ≥60 hours to reach goal feeds had significantly longer LOS than the other groups. There was no difference in the distribution of the LOS based on percentage of goal feeds initiated. Patients who required ≥60 hours to attain goal feeds had the most feeding complications.

CONCLUSIONS

More aggressive feeding advancement and earlier initiation of feeds were associated with decreased LOS without an associated increase in adverse clinical events.

Implementing an early feeding pathway post gastrostomy insertion reduces inpatient stay

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus regarding optimal postoperative feeding strategy following gastrostomy insertion in children. The aim of this study was to determine whether implementing an early postoperative feeding pathway reduces length of stay (LOS) without increasing complications.

METHODS

A retrospective case note review of all children having a new gastrostomy inserted during a one-year period prior to (July 2016-July 2017) and following (July 2017-July 2018) pathway introduction was performed. Children unable to follow the pathway for coexisting medical or nutritional reasons were excluded. The pathway comprised feeding 50% of normal feed 2 hours postprocedure, followed by 100% of normal feed at 5 and 8 h. Previously, patients were fed postoperatively according to surgeon preference.

RESULTS

116 cases met inclusion criteria, 55 prior to and 61 after pathway implementation. Children following the early feeding pathway had a shorter postoperative LOS than the historical group (median 28 vs 33 h, p < 0.003), while immediate (<72 h) and early (<30 day) complication rates were similar (8.2 vs 7.3%, p = 1.00 and 12 vs 16%, p = 0.59, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Early postoperative feeding after gastrostomy insertion is safe and reduces LOS.

TYPE OF STUDY

Quality improvement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Dispelling Myths and Unfounded Practices About Enteral Nutrition

Many protocols and steps in the process of enteral nutrition (EN) use are not overly supported with strong research and have been done the same way over many years without questioning the use of best-practices evidence. This article reports many of the myths and unfounded practices surrounding EN and attempts to refute those myths with current evidence. These practices include those about enteral access devices, formulas, enteral administration, and complications.

Comparison of Tolerance and Complication Rates Between Early and Delayed Feeding After Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Placement in Children

BACKGROUND

Enteral nutrition is commonly initiated 24 hours after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in children. Adult studies report safe refeeding within 1 to 6 hours of PEG, and these findings have been cautiously applied to children. Comparative studies assessing early versus next-day refeeding in children are currently lacking. This study evaluates feeding tolerance and complications following early versus next-day refeeding in children.

METHODS

This is a single-center, pre-post study. In June 2015 our clinical practice changed to begin refeeding within 6 hours of PEG. Children receiving early refeeding from December 2015 to August 2017 were included. A retrospective cohort from February 2013 to April 2015 was used for comparison.

RESULTS

Forty-six children received early refeeding after PEG and 37 received next-day refeeding. Gender distribution was similar in the 2 groups. Early refeeding patients were slightly older (3.5 vs 2.2 years) and heavier (15.5 vs 11.5 kg) at PEG placement compared to next-day refeeding patients. Early refeeding patients experienced greater postprocedural nausea and/or vomiting (19% vs 8%, P < 0.001) and leakage, irritation, and infection around the stoma (19% vs 0.0%, P < 0.001). Compared to early refeeders, next-day refeeding patients experienced higher occurrence of fever (35% vs 13%, P = 0.021), longer nutritional disruption (24.6 vs 3.7 hours, P < 0.001), and longer length of stay (51 vs 27 hours; P < 0.001). One next-day refeeding patient experienced peritonitis. One early refeeding patient experienced cellulitis requiring hospitalization and a second experienced gastrostomy tube migration into the peritoneal cavity requiring removal.

CONCLUSION

Early refeeders experienced higher rates of postprocedural nausea or vomiting and irritation, leakage, or infection around the stoma; but experienced lower rates of postoperative fever. Early refeeding resulted in reduced nutritional interruption and hospital length of stay.

Modified percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy technique without endoscopic or nasogastric access

Background

The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a modified percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (MPRG) technique under ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance without endoscopic or nasogastric access.

Results

The study included 24 patients: 10 males and 14 females whose ages ranged from 44 to 80 years old. Ten patients had esophageal cancer and 14 patients had neck cancer. Technical success was achieved in 23 out of the 25 procedures (92%). Two procedures failed (8%) and were converted to the conventional technique by using the nasogastric tube. No major complications were reported. Minor complications were observed in 5 patients (20%): intraperitoneal air and contrast leakage in 4 patients and focal mucosal dissection by the contrast in 1 patient.

Conclusion

The MPRG has high technical success rate, is safe with no major complications, and is most feasible when endoscopic or nasogastric access cannot be performed.

The Evidence on Feeding Initiation After Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement

Feeding initiation after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube insertion might occur anywhere from 4 to 24 hours after insertion in the practice setting. A review and appraisal of the literature reveals that feeding initiation is both safe and prudent within 4 hours of placement. Early feeding initiation allows for medications and nutrition to be given by enteral means earlier, resulting in a cost benefit for facilities and allowing patients to be discharged home or transferred to long-term care sooner. Nursing theory supports early feeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. Early feedings provide patients with relief of their hunger and allow the patients and caregivers to move forward with the next level of care in their recovery.

Management of early PEG tube dislodgement: simultaneous endoscopic closure of gastric wall defect and PEG replacement

A 53-year-old man with dysphagia underwent uneventful placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube for long-term enteral feeding access. 11 hours after the procedure, it was discovered that he had accidentally dislodged the feeding tube. On physical examination, he was found to have a benign abdomen without evidence of peritonitis or sepsis. He was observed overnight with serial abdominal examinations and nasogastric decompression. In the morning, he was taken back to the endoscopy suite where endoscopic clips were employed to close the gastric wall defect and a PEG tube was replaced at an adjacent site. The patient was fed 24 hours thereafter and discharged from the hospital 48 hours after the procedure. Early accidental removal of a PEG tube in patients without sepsis or peritonitis can be safely treated with simultaneous endoscopic closure of the gastrotomy and PEG tube replacement, resulting in earlier enteral feeding and shorter hospital stay.

Feeding Advancement and Simultaneous Transition to Discharge (FASTDischarge) after laparoscopic gastrostomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrostomy (LG) is a common surgical procedure. However, there is little consensus on a postoperative feeding regimen. With prior nasogastric feed tolerance, there should be no delay in resumption of feeds and subsequent discharge to home. This is a report on a Feeding Advancement and Simultaneous Transition-Discharge (FAST-Discharge) pathway, which to date has not been reported in the literature.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent LG was performed from May 2010 to May 2015. All were outpatients who were on prior nasogastric feeds. The postoperative order set initiates feeds in 4 h to advance to goal as tolerated. Time to initial feed and goal nutrition, and overall length of stay (LOS) were evaluated.

RESULTS

122 patients were identified with 55% percent being male and with a median operative age of 15 months (IQR 8-27). 53% were started on bolus feeds. Initial feeds were started at a median of 2.8 h (IQR: 1.8-4.7). The median duration to goal nutrition was 6 h (IQR: 0-14). 97% reached full feeds within 24 h with no complications related to feed advancement. Median LOS was 26 h (IQR: 24-30).

CONCLUSION

An expedited pathway with early feeding and discharge is possible after laparoscopic gastrostomy tube placement with a low risk for adverse events.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) infusion as mono- or combination therapy

Levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) infusion is an effective escalating therapy in patients with Parkinson disease (PD) suffering from motor fluctuations and dyskinesia. Levodopa/carbidopa given continuously as infusion provides an optimized application of the most effective and best tolerable antiparkinsonian drug. It has been proven to have a superior motor effect compared with oral levodopa and to improve also non-motor symptoms. However, invasiveness, discomfort resulting from carrying an external device, and side effects associated with the way of administration limit its application in PD patients. At present, there are no guidelines that delineate to which patients LCIG should be offered as monotherapy, in combination with oral and/or transdermal medication, or as additional therapy to deep brain stimulation (DBS). Based on clinical studies, we propose an expert consensus for neurologists addressing the question when LCIG therapy should be recommended and in which cases LCIG infusion is suggested in combination with other antiparkinsonian drugs and/or DBS. We describe how LCIG should be initiated and what we consider necessary for clinical follow-up. We suggest an algorithm facilitating decision-making with respect to the currently available invasive PD therapies, namely infusion with subcutaneous apomorphine, LCIG, and DBS.

Laparoscopic-Assisted Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy

There are a variety of techniques for gastrostomy tube placement. Endoscopic and radiologic approaches have almost entirely superseded surgical placement. However, an aging population and significant advancements in modern healthcare have resulted in patients with increasingly complex medical issues or postsurgical anatomy. The rising prevalence of obesity has also created technical challenges for proceduralists of many specialties. When patients with these comorbidities develop the need for long-term enteral nutrition and feeding tube placement, standard approaches such as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) by endoscopists and percutaneous image-guided gastrostomy (PIG) by interventional radiologists may be technically difficult or impossible. For these challenging situations, laparoscopic-assisted PEG (LAPEG) is an alternative option. LAPEG combines the advantages of PEG with direct intraperitoneal visualization, helping ensure a safe tube placement tract free of intervening organs or structures. In this review, we highlight some of the important factors of first-line gastrostomy techniques, with an emphasis on the utility and procedural technique of LAPEG when they are not feasible.

ASPEN Safe Practices for Enteral Nutrition Therapy [Formula: see text]

Enteral nutrition (EN) is a valuable clinical intervention for patients of all ages in a variety of care settings. Along with its many outcome benefits come the potential for adverse effects. These safety issues are the result of clinical complications and of process-related errors. The latter can occur at any step from patient assessment, prescribing, and order review, to product selection, labeling, and administration. To maximize the benefits of EN while minimizing adverse events requires that a systematic approach of care be in place. This includes open communication, standardization, and incorporation of best practices into the EN process. This document provides recommendations based on the available evidence and expert consensus for safe practices, across each step of the process, for all those involved in caring for patients receiving EN.

The protocol for a randomised-controlled trial of the evaluation of the tolerance and safety of early enteral nutrition in children after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. (protocol version 09.01.2015)

Background

The appropriate time to initiate enteral nutrition after the placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube has been an area of limited research. There are no sufficient randomised prospective controlled trials in the paediatric population comparing the safety and tolerance of early feeding (3 h) after PEG placement. In order to reduce the period of fasting, inadequate nutritional support, and hospitalisation time, we decided to devise this study.

Methods/Design

This study is a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial designed to evaluate the tolerance and safety of early enteral nutrition after PEG placement in children. Patients are randomised to receive the first feeding bolus with a polymeric diet (1 kcal/ml) via a feeding tube 3 h after the PEG placement (group I - early enteral feeding) or 8 h after the procedure (group II - late enteral feeding). The key objective of the study is to compare the tolerance and safety of the early- and late-feeding modes after PEG placement in children. The primary endpoint is the number of patients who will achieve full feed (total fluid and caloric requirements) within 48 h of the first feeding bolus. The secondary endpoints are: the number of early and late complications, the duration of hospitalisation after PEG placement, gastric residuals (ml) total in the period up to 48 h since the first feeding bolus.

Discussion

To our knowledge this is the first study in paediatric patients to evaluate the tolerance and safety of early enteral nutrition after PEG placement. The goal is to establish an optimum standard procedure in the group of paediatric patients qualified for the PEG insertion procedure in Poland.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02777541, registration date 05/18/2016.

CIRSE Standards of Practice Guidelines on Gastrostomy

PURPOSE

Surgical Gastrostomy has been around since the 19th century but in 1980 the first successful percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy was reported. A year later the first successful percutaneous gastrostomy was performed using fluoroscopic guidance. The technique for percutaneous insertion and the equipment used has been refined since then and it is now considered the gold standard for gastrostomy insertion. Here we present guidelines for image-guided enteral feeding tubes in adults.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We performed a review and analysis of the scientific literature, other national and international guidelines and expert opinion.

RESULTS

Studies have shown fluoroscopic techniques have consistently higher success rates with lower rates of major complications than endoscopic techniques. However, the Achilles' heel of many fluoroscopic techniques is the requirement for smaller gastrostomy tube sizes resulting in them being more prone to blockages and thus requiring further intervention.

CONCLUSION

Radiological feeding tube insertion is a safe and effective procedure. Success rates are higher, and complication rates lower than PEG or surgical gastrostomy tube placement and innovative techniques for gastric and jejunal access mean that there are very few cases in which RIG is not possible. The principal weakness of radiologically inserted gastrostomies is the limitiation on tube size which leads to a higher rate of tube blockage. Per-oral image-guided gastrostomies have to an extent addressed this but have not been popularised. Currently many centres still consider endoscopic gastrostomies as the first line unless patients are too unwell to undergo this procedure or previous attempts have failed, in which case radioloically inserted gastrostomies are the technique of choice.

Early initiation of enteral feeding in cancer patients after outpatient percutaneous fluoroscopy-guided gastrostomy catheter placement

PURPOSE

To report the results of early enteral feeding in patients with cancer after outpatient placement of a percutaneous fluoroscopy-guided gastrostomy (PFG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2008 through December 2008, 121 consecutive patients with cancer underwent outpatient placement of a PFG for nutrition. Of these patients, 118 patients met criteria for early feeding, and 113 were successfully fed early (after at least 3 hours). Of the patients fed early, 5 had insufficient follow-up for further analysis leaving 108 patients for outcomes analysis. After placement of the PFG, patients were put on low-wall suction via the PFG for 1 hour followed by feeding via the PFG at least 3 hours after placement. Follow-up evaluation was done the next business day. The medical records were reviewed for 30-day outcomes of early feeding, technical aspects of the procedures, and complications.

RESULTS

After placement of the PFG, 98% (118 of 121) of patients met criteria for early feeding, and 93% (113 of 121) of patients were successfully fed early. The median time between the end of the procedure and initiation of feeding was 4 hours (interquartile range, 3.7-4.4 h). The 30-day minor complication rate was 14% (15 of 108), and the 30-day major complication rate was 1% (1 of 108). No complications were directly attributable to early feeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Early initiation of tube feedings after outpatient placement of a PFG was well tolerated in patients with cancer and carried comparable risks to previously reported results using traditional delayed feeding protocols. Early feeding provided patients with prompt enteral nutrition and eliminated the need for routine hospital admission after the procedure.

Tips and tricks for deep jejunal enteral access: modifying techniques to maximize success

Endoscopic insertion of enteral feeding tubes is a major advance in the delivery of nutrition therapy. Since the first report of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in 1980 (Gauderer et al. J Pediatr Surg. 15:872-5, 1980), insertion techniques and equipment have been refined and improved. Despite this progress, deep jejunal enteral access remains a difficult procedure, and many endoscopists do not have experience with the techniques of nasojejunal (NJ) placement, percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy (PEGJ), or direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) (Shike and Latkany, Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 8:569-80, 1998). The difference between an exasperating experience and a rewarding procedure lies in mastering the "tips and tricks" that make insertion easy. While the basic techniques are described elsewhere (McClave and Chang 2011), we review several universal basic principles to enhance deep jejunal access, which should promote a more efficient and successful procedure.

Gastroenteric tube feeding: Techniques, problems and solutions

Gastroenteric tube feeding plays a major role in the management of patients with poor voluntary intake, chronic neurological or mechanical dysphagia or gut dysfunction, and patients who are critically ill. However, despite the benefits and widespread use of enteral tube feeding, some patients experience complications. This review aims to discuss and compare current knowledge regarding the clinical application of enteral tube feeding, together with associated complications and special aspects. We conducted an extensive literature search on PubMed, Embase and Medline using index terms relating to enteral access, enteral feeding/nutrition, tube feeding, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy/jejunostomy, endoscopic nasoenteric tube, nasogastric tube, and refeeding syndrome. The literature showed common routes of enteral access to include nasoenteral tube, gastrostomy and jejunostomy, while complications fall into four major categories: mechanical, e.g., tube blockage or removal; gastrointestinal, e.g., diarrhea; infectious e.g., aspiration pneumonia, tube site infection; and metabolic, e.g., refeeding syndrome, hyperglycemia. Although the type and frequency of complications arising from tube feeding vary considerably according to the chosen access route, gastrointestinal complications are without doubt the most common. Complications associated with enteral tube feeding can be reduced by careful observance of guidelines, including those related to food composition, administration rate, portion size, food temperature and patient supervision.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: Indications, technique, complications and management

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the preferred route of feeding and nutritional support in patients with a functional gastrointestinal system who require long-term enteral nutrition. Besides its well-known advantages over parenteral nutrition, PEG offers superior access to the gastrointestinal system over surgical methods. Considering that nowadays PEG tube placement is one of the most common endoscopic procedures performed worldwide, knowing its indications and contraindications is of paramount importance in current medicine. PEG tubes are sometimes placed inappropriately in patients unable to tolerate adequate oral intake because of incorrect and unrealistic understanding of their indications and what they can accomplish. Broadly, the two main indications of PEG tube placement are enteral feeding and stomach decompression. On the other hand, distal enteral obstruction, severe uncorrectable coagulopathy and hemodynamic instability constitute the main absolute contraindications for PEG tube placement in hospitalized patients. Although generally considered to be a safe procedure, there is the potential for both minor and major complications. Awareness of these potential complications, as well as understanding routine aftercare of the catheter, can improve the quality of care for patients with a PEG tube. These complications can generally be classified into three major categories: endoscopic technical difficulties, PEG procedure-related complications and late complications associated with PEG tube use and wound care. In this review we describe a variety of minor and major tube-related complications as well as strategies for their management and avoidance. Different methods of percutaneous PEG tube placement into the stomach have been described in the literature with the “pull” technique being the most common method. In the last section of this review, the reader is presented with a brief discussion of these procedures, techniques and related issues. Despite the mentioned PEG tube placement complications, this procedure has gained worldwide popularity as a safe enteral access for nutrition in patients with a functional gastrointestinal system.

A comparative observational study of early versus delayed feeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the procedure of choice for long-term enteral feeding.

OBJECTIVE

This prospective observational study was carried out to compare the safety of commencing feeding 3 h compared to 16-24 h after PEG tube placement.

METHODS

One hundred and ten patients with oropharyngeal malignancies who had consented for PEG were enrolled. Trial-specific consent and IRB approval were not obtained because at the time when this study was done, this was not mandatory for observational studies which involved standard procedures. Alternate patients were started on early feeding within 3 h (group I) or after overnight observation of 16 to 24 h (group II). Five hundred milliliters of Ringer's lactate was infused over 4 h initially, followed 2 h later by 200 mL of formula feed. The patients were advised to take bolus feeds of 200 mL every 2 h and oral feeds ad libitum from the next day. All patients were evaluated on days 1, 2, 7, and 30.

RESULTS

There were 55 patients (47 males) in group I and 54 patients (38 males) in group II who were matched for age (mean age 46.1 and 46.1 years, respectively). Complications included PEG site infection (1), peristomal leak (3), and displacement of the PEG tube (1) in group I. PEG site infection was seen in five patients in group II. All the complications were managed conservatively on an ambulatory basis.

CONCLUSION

Initiation of tube feeding 3 h after an uncomplicated PEG was safe, well tolerated, and helped to reduce the hospital stay.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in children: Is early feeding safe?

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the preferred method to provide nutritional support for patients with normal gastrointestinal function but cannot be fed orally for a variety of reasons. Owing to safety concerns, the first feeding after PEG tube placement is generally delayed. Early feeding may be an option; however, childhood studies regarding early feeding after the PEG procedure are highly insufficient.

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted to compare early (4th hour) and late (12th hour) feeding after the PEG procedure. The PEG process was performed with the standard pull technique. Prophylactic antimicrobial drugs were not used. Complications such as gastric residue after feeding, vomiting, fever, systemic signs of infection, and duration of hospital stay were recorded. Tube feeding training was given to parents during their stay in the hospital in both groups. In the first and third days following PEG, the patients were visited by an experienced nurse in their homes and evaluated in terms of potential complications.

RESULTS

The study was completed with a total of 69 patients: 35 in the early feeding group and 34 in the late feeding group. The demographic characteristics of the groups were similar. Vomiting was rare and detected as similar in both groups (early feeding group 8.5% [3/35], late feeding group 8.8% [3/34], P = 1.00). Rarely, minor gastric residue was observed in both groups (early feeding group 11.4%, late feeding group 8.8% [P = 1.00]). The amount of gastric residue in the early feeding group was a maximum of 13.2 mL, whereas the late feeding group had a maximum of 14.3 mL. The average duration of stay in the hospital for the early and late feeding groups was calculated as 6.7 ± 0.64 and 28.3 ± 3.74 hours, respectively (P < 0.001). Leakage from gastrostomy fistulas, peritonitis, and aspiration were not observed in any patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The feeding at the fourth hour after PEG placement was safe and well tolerated by patients and shortened the duration of the hospital stay. The use of prophylactic antibiotics seems to be unnecessary before the procedure.

Feeding tube placement: errors and complications

Feeding tube placement for enteral nutrition (EN) support is widely used in both critically ill and stable chronically ill patients who are unable to meet their nutrition needs orally. Nasal or oral feeding tubes can be performed blindly at the bedside or with fluoroscopic or endoscopic guidance into the stomach or small bowel. Percutaneous feeding tubes are used when EN support is required for longer periods (>4-6 weeks) and are most commonly placed endoscopically or radiographically. Although generally safe and effective, there is a wide spectrum of known complications associated with feeding tube placement. Errors made at the time of feeding tube placement can result in a number of these procedural and postprocedural complications. In many cases, a single error at the time of placement can result in numerous complications. A thorough knowledge of these errors and avoiding them in practice will decrease iatrogenic complications in a vulnerable population. In addition, early recognition and management of complications will further minimize morbidity and even mortality in enteral feeding tube placement. This article reviews the common errors leading to complications of enteral feeding tube placement and their prevention and management.

Post-PEG feeding time: a web based national survey amongst gastroenterologists

BACKGROUND

Literature suggests early post-percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding is as safe as delayed feeding. No consensus exists regarding feeding initiation after PEG placement. We performed a national survey to assess current practice regarding feeding initiation after PEG placement as well as clinical and practitioner based factors associated with early or delayed feeding.

METHODS

A survey assessing feeding initiation in general ward and intensive care unit patients, current literature knowledge, motility agent use, number of PEG placed per year, along with physician demographics was emailed to 5256 gastroenterologists. Statistical analysis was done using SAS software (V.9).

RESULTS

28% of gastroenterologists responded. Amongst respondents, 59% were private consultants, 25% academic physicians and 16% trainees. Private gastroenterologists initiated feeding earlier (≤12 h) compared to academic gastroenterologists in general ward and intensive care unit patients (p<0.0001). Amongst respondents, 41% of physicians were aware of current literature on post-PEG feeding times. Physicians aware of current literature started feeding earlier (<12h) compared to those not aware in general ward and intensive care unit patients (p=0.0002). Male physicians instituted feeding earlier than females (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Feeding initiation after PEG placement varies amongst gastroenterologists. Further studies are required to explore obstacles in standardizing post-PEG feeding practices.

The practice of gastrostomy tube placement across a Canadian regional health authority

OBJECTIVES

We sought to conduct an assessment of the practice of gastrostomy (G) tube placement across an entire city, which would reflect usual clinical care as compared with referral center practice.

METHODS

We reviewed and retrospectively extracted data from patient records for all percutaneous endoscopic G (PEG) and radiological percutaneous G (RPG) tube placements at six Winnipeg hospitals between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007.

RESULTS

A total of 418 patients had G tubes (376 PEG, 42 RPG) inserted during the study period. The most common indications were cerebrovascular accidents (25%), head and neck cancer (23%), and head trauma (10%). The position of the external bolster was not documented in 38% of patients. The median time to the first complication was 10 days, initiation of feeding was 48 hours, and tube removal was 40 days. Complications developed in 102 (24%) patients. Patients with RPG tubes had more infections and were less likely to receive prophylactic antibiotics (P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, complications were more likely to occur in patients with RPG tubes and after insertions by lowest procedure volume physicians. Overall mortality was 12% within 30 days of G-tube placement. Death of one patient was directly related to peritonitis after G-tube insertion.

CONCLUSIONS

In usual clinical practice, there is an underuse of prophylactic antibiotics and a delay in the institution of nutritional support after G-tube placement. A small but significant proportion of patients may develop major complications, with associated risk of mortality. The higher complication rate after procedures performed by lowest volume physicians needs further evaluation.