Literature DB >> 2506375

Efficacy of tube feeding in supplying energy requirements of hospitalized patients.

G B Abernathy1, W D Heizer, B J Holcombe, R H Raasch, K E Schlegel, L J Hak.   

Abstract

During a 6-week period, all adult patients in a university hospital receiving ready-to-feed nasoenteric tube feeding formula were prospectively studied. The study objective was to determine each patient's caloric intake from tube feeding relative to their energy needs and to identify factors causing decreased feeding intake. Each of 35 patients was visited at least once daily to determine their volumetric intake of tube feeding formula. Daily review of patient care records and nursing interviews were used to identify interruptions in therapy. Patient's basal energy expenditures (BEE) were calculated using the Harris-Benedict equation. Calorie goals were set by members of the Nutrition Support Service or clinical dietitians. Intakes averaged 1095 +/- 41 Kcal (SEM) per day or 61% of their mean calorie goal of 1791 +/- 41 Kcal. Mean daily calorie intake was statistically different (p less than 0.05) from mean energy goal on patient study days 1 through 5, 7, and 8. Only 16 of the 35 patients achieved an intake of 100% of their energy goal on any day of therapy. Calorie goals averaged 1.4 times BEE. Mean daily calorie intake did not exceed BEE until study day 10. Eighteen % of potential feeding time was lost due to temporary feeding interruptions; primarily inadvertent extubation (4.6%), gastrointestinal intolerance (4.7%), medical procedures requiring discontinuation of feeding (2.8%), and feeding tube positioning difficulties (1.5%). In addition, physicians ordered only 75% of calculated energy goals. These data indicate that tube feeding therapy, when provided under usual hospital conditions, does not meet patient's energy requirements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2506375     DOI: 10.1177/0148607189013004387

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr        ISSN: 0148-6071            Impact factor:   4.016


  4 in total

Review 1.  [Enteral nutrition].

Authors:  M Pirlich; H Lochs; J Ockenga
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 0.743

2.  Assessment of the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube as part of an integrated approach to enteral feeding.

Authors:  C Wicks; A Gimson; P Vlavianos; M Lombard; M Panos; P Macmathuna; M Tudor; K Andrews; D Westaby
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  A randomised prospective comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding after acute dysphagic stroke.

Authors:  B Norton; M Homer-Ward; M T Donnelly; R G Long; G K Holmes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-01-06

4.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in a general hospital: prospective evaluation of indications, outcome, and randomised comparison of two tube designs.

Authors:  M Z Panos; H Reilly; A Moran; T Reilly; P J Wallis; R Wears; I M Chesner
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 23.059

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.