Literature DB >> 35132448

A dedicated feeding tube clinic reduces emergency department utilization for gastrostomy tube complications.

Amber M Moyer1, Danielle Abbitt2, Kevin Choy2, Teresa S Jones2, Theresa L Morin2, Krzystof J Wikiel2, Carlton C Barnett2, John T Moore2, Thomas N Robinson2, Edward L Jones2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Enteral access is required for a variety of reasons from neuromuscular disorders to dysphagia. Gastrostomy tubes (GTs) can be placed endoscopically, surgically, or radiographically and complications include infection, bleeding, leakage and unintentional removal. Routine post-procedural follow-up is limited by inconsistent guidelines and management by different specialty teams. We established a dedicated GT clinic to provide continuity of care and prophylactic GT exchange. We hypothesized that patients followed in the GT clinic would have reduced Emergency Department (ED) utilization.
METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent GT placement from January 2010 to January 2020 was conducted. Baseline demographics, indications for GT placement, number and reason for ED visits and utilization of a multidisciplinary GT clinic were studied.
RESULTS: A total of 97 patients were included. The most common indication for placement was dysphagia (88, 91%) and the most common primary diagnosis was head and neck malignancy (51, 51%). The GT clinic is a multidisciplinary clinic staffed by surgeons and residents, dieticians, and wound care specialists and cared for 16 patients in this study. Three patients (19%) in the GT clinic group required ED visits compared to 44 (54%) in the standard of care (SOC) group (p < 0.05). There was an average of 0.9 ED visits per patient (range 0-7) in the GT clinic group vs 1.6 ED visits per patient (range 0-20) in the SOC group (p = 0.34). Feeding tubes were prophylactically exchanged an average of 7 times per patient in the GT clinic group vs 3 times per patient in the SOC group (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary clinic dedicated to GT care limits ED visits for associated complications by more than 50%. Follow-up in a dedicated clinic with prophylactic tube exchange decreases ED visits and should be considered at facilities that care for patients with GTs.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complications; Emergency department utilization; Gastrostomy; Multidisciplinary

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35132448     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09065-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   3.453


  10 in total

1.  Percutaneous feeding tube replacement in the ED--are confirmatory x-rays necessary?

Authors:  Gregory Jacobson; Peter A Brokish; Keith Wrenn
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.469

Review 2.  Gastroenteric tube feeding: techniques, problems and solutions.

Authors:  Irina Blumenstein; Yogesh M Shastri; Jürgen Stein
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition.

Authors:  Stephan C Bischoff; Peter Austin; Kurt Boeykens; Michael Chourdakis; Cristina Cuerda; Cora Jonkers-Schuitema; Marek Lichota; Ibolya Nyulasi; Stéphane M Schneider; Zeno Stanga; Loris Pironi
Journal:  Clin Nutr       Date:  2019-05-30       Impact factor: 7.324

4.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy-20 years later: a historical perspective.

Authors:  M W Gauderer
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.545

Review 5.  Enteral Access and Associated Complications.

Authors:  Mark H DeLegge
Journal:  Gastroenterol Clin North Am       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 3.806

6.  Late accidental dislodgement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube: an underestimated burden on patients and the health care system.

Authors:  Laura H Rosenberger; Timothy Newhook; Bruce Schirmer; Robert G Sawyer
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-05-02       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 7.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: indications, technique, complications and management.

Authors:  Ata A Rahnemai-Azar; Amir A Rahnemaiazar; Rozhin Naghshizadian; Amparo Kurtz; Daniel T Farkas
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Reduced 30-day gastrostomy placement mortality following the introduction of a multidisciplinary nutrition support team: a cohort study.

Authors:  C L Hvas; K Farrer; B Blackett; H Lloyd; P Paine; S Lal
Journal:  J Hum Nutr Diet       Date:  2017-09-29       Impact factor: 3.089

9.  Emergency Department Visits and Readmissions among Children after Gastrostomy Tube Placement.

Authors:  Adam B Goldin; Kurt F Heiss; Matt Hall; David H Rothstein; Peter C Minneci; Martin L Blakely; Marybeth Browne; Mehul V Raval; Samir S Shah; Shawn J Rangel; Charles L Snyder; Charles D Vinocur; Loren Berman; Jennifer N Cooper; Marjorie J Arca
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2016-04-11       Impact factor: 4.406

10.  Prediction of risk of adverse events related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Maha Osman Mohamed Shangab; Niaz Ahmed Shaikh
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-07-25
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.