J R Boulton-Jones1, J Lewis, J C Jobling, K Teahon. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PD, UK. robandakathome@hotmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maintaining nutrition is an integral part of patient care and when it is possible enteral nutrition is regarded as superior to parenteral nutrition. Post-pyloric feeding may enable enteral feeding to be maintained in patients who cannot tolerate nasogastric feeding. The success of post-pyloric feeding in routine clinical practice is uncertain. METHODS: One hundred and forty six consecutive patients who had 150 separate episodes of post-pyloric feeding were identified. Casenotes were reviewed to assess indication for post-pyloric feeding, prior use of alternative methods of feeding, success of achieving nutritional requirements and patient outcome. RESULTS: A post-pyloric tube was successfully placed in 138 (92%) and nutritional requirements were met by post-pyloric feeding alone in 124 (83%). Post-pyloric feeding was used for between 2 and 254 days (median 14 days). Conditions for which post-pyloric feeding was used to administer nutritional support included burn injury, pancreatitis, sepsis, post-operative gastric stasis, bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy induced vomiting. Fifty (33%) patients had an attempt at nasogastric feeding and 33 (22%) were on total parenteral nutrition before post-pyloric feeding was commenced. There was one major complication of a jejunal ulcer bleed in the series. Minor complications included displacement of the nasojejunal tube and failure to absorb feed related to gastrointestinal dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Post-pyloric feeding can be successfully used to maintain enteral nutrition in patients who would otherwise require parenteral nutrition.
BACKGROUND: Maintaining nutrition is an integral part of patient care and when it is possible enteral nutrition is regarded as superior to parenteral nutrition. Post-pyloric feeding may enable enteral feeding to be maintained in patients who cannot tolerate nasogastric feeding. The success of post-pyloric feeding in routine clinical practice is uncertain. METHODS: One hundred and forty six consecutive patients who had 150 separate episodes of post-pyloric feeding were identified. Casenotes were reviewed to assess indication for post-pyloric feeding, prior use of alternative methods of feeding, success of achieving nutritional requirements and patient outcome. RESULTS: A post-pyloric tube was successfully placed in 138 (92%) and nutritional requirements were met by post-pyloric feeding alone in 124 (83%). Post-pyloric feeding was used for between 2 and 254 days (median 14 days). Conditions for which post-pyloric feeding was used to administer nutritional support included burn injury, pancreatitis, sepsis, post-operative gastric stasis, bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy induced vomiting. Fifty (33%) patients had an attempt at nasogastric feeding and 33 (22%) were on total parenteral nutrition before post-pyloric feeding was commenced. There was one major complication of a jejunal ulcer bleed in the series. Minor complications included displacement of the nasojejunal tube and failure to absorb feed related to gastrointestinal dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Post-pyloric feeding can be successfully used to maintain enteral nutrition in patients who would otherwise require parenteral nutrition.
Authors: Adam Deane; Marianne J Chapman; Robert J Fraser; Laura K Bryant; Carly Burgstad; Nam Q Nguyen Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2007-08-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Arja Gerritsen; Roos A W Wennink; Marc G H Besselink; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Dorine S J Tseng; Elles Steenhagen; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; I Quintus Molenaar Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Arja Gerritsen; Thijs de Rooij; Marcel J van der Poel; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Willem A Bemelman; Olivier R C Busch; Marc G H Besselink; Elisabeth M H Mathus-Vliegen Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Arja Gerritsen; Marc G Besselink; Kasia P Cieslak; Menno R Vriens; Elles Steenhagen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Inne H Borel Rinkes; I Quintus Molenaar Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-04-20 Impact factor: 3.452