Syed Tariq Khalil1, Michael R Uhing1, Lori Duesing2, Alexis Visotcky3, Sergey Tarima3, T Hang Nghiem-Rao1. 1. 1 Division of Neonatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 2. 2 Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 3. 3 Division of Biostatistics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the tube-related complications and feeding outcomes of infants discharged home from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) with nasogastric (NG) tube feeding or gastrostomy (G-tube) feeding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a chart review of 335 infants discharged from our NICU with home NG tube or G-tube feeding between January 2009 and December 2013. The primary outcome was the incidence of feeding tube-related complications requiring emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, or deaths. Secondary outcome was feeding status at 6 months postdischarge. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: There were 322 infants discharged with home enteral tube feeding (NG tube, n = 84; G-tube, n = 238), with available outpatient data for the 6-month postdischarge period. A total of 115 ED visits, 28 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths were due to a tube-related complication. The incidence of tube-related complications requiring an ED visit was significantly higher in the G-tube group compared with the NG tube group (33.6% vs 9.5%, P < .001). Two patients died due to a G-tube-related complication. By 6 months postdischarge, full oral feeding was achieved in 71.4% of infants in the NG tube group compared with 19.3% in the G-tube group ( P < .001). Type of feeding tube and percentage of oral feeding at discharge were significantly associated with continued tube feeding at 6 months postdischarge. CONCLUSION: Home NG tube feeding is associated with fewer ED visits for tube-related complications compared with home G-tube feeding. Some infants could benefit from a trial home NG tube feeding.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the tube-related complications and feeding outcomes of infants discharged home from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) with nasogastric (NG) tube feeding or gastrostomy (G-tube) feeding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a chart review of 335 infants discharged from our NICU with home NG tube or G-tube feeding between January 2009 and December 2013. The primary outcome was the incidence of feeding tube-related complications requiring emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, or deaths. Secondary outcome was feeding status at 6 months postdischarge. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: There were 322 infants discharged with home enteral tube feeding (NG tube, n = 84; G-tube, n = 238), with available outpatient data for the 6-month postdischarge period. A total of 115 ED visits, 28 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths were due to a tube-related complication. The incidence of tube-related complications requiring an ED visit was significantly higher in the G-tube group compared with the NG tube group (33.6% vs 9.5%, P < .001). Two patients died due to a G-tube-related complication. By 6 months postdischarge, full oral feeding was achieved in 71.4% of infants in the NG tube group compared with 19.3% in the G-tube group ( P < .001). Type of feeding tube and percentage of oral feeding at discharge were significantly associated with continued tube feeding at 6 months postdischarge. CONCLUSION: Home NG tube feeding is associated with fewer ED visits for tube-related complications compared with home G-tube feeding. Some infants could benefit from a trial home NG tube feeding.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Magnus O Dahlseng; Guro L Andersen; Maria DA Graca Andrada; Catherine Arnaud; Rajesh Balu; Javier De la Cruz; Teresa Folha; Kate Himmelmann; Karen Horridge; Pétur B Júlíusson; Magnus Påhlman; Gija Rackauskaite; Solveig Sigurdardottir; Peter Uldall; Torstein Vik Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: Katherine E Nelson; Ashley Lacombe-Duncan; Eyal Cohen; David B Nicholas; Laura C Rosella; Astrid Guttmann; Sanjay Mahant Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Peter B Sullivan; Edmund Juszczak; Allison M E Bachlet; Adrian G Thomas; Bridget Lambert; Angharad Vernon-Roberts; Hugh W Grant; Muftah Eltumi; Nicola Alder; Crispin Jenkinson Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: David Fox; Elizabeth J Campagna; Joel Friedlander; David A Partrick; Daniel I Rees; Allison Kempe Journal: J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.839
Authors: Joanne M Lagatta; Michael Uhing; Krishna Acharya; Julie Lavoie; Erin Rholl; Kathryn Malin; Margaret Malnory; Jonathan Leuthner; David C Brousseau Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2021-03-28 Impact factor: 6.314
Authors: George T Nicholson; Andrew C Glatz; Athar M Qureshi; Christopher J Petit; Jeffery J Meadows; Courtney McCracken; Michael Kelleman; Holly Bauser-Heaton; Ari J Gartenberg; R Allen Ligon; Varun Aggarwal; Derek B Kwakye; Bryan H Goldstein Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Bashar W Badran; Dorothea D Jenkins; Daniel Cook; Sean Thompson; Morgan Dancy; William H DeVries; Georgia Mappin; Philipp Summers; Marom Bikson; Mark S George Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Sadie L Williams; Natalie M Popowics; Dawit G Tadesse; Brenda B Poindexter; Stephanie L Merhar Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 2.521