4.2 Article

Outcomes of Infants With Home Tube Feeding: Comparing Nasogastric vs Gastrostomy Tubes

期刊

JOURNAL OF PARENTERAL AND ENTERAL NUTRITION
卷 41, 期 8, 页码 1380-1385

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/0148607116670621

关键词

neonates; enteral feeding tube; outcomes; complications; nutrition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据