4.7 Article

Experience of post-pyloric feeding in seriously ill patients in clinical practice

Journal

CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 35-41

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/S0261-5614(03)00086-4

Keywords

post-pyloric feeding; critical care; nutrition

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available