This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Jimenez, L. L. Articles by Ramage, J. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jimenez, L. L. Articles by Ramage, J. E., Jr Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Benefits of Postpyloric Enteral Access Placement by a Nutrition Support Dietitian

L. Lee Jimenez, RD, CNSD^*
James E. Ramage, Jr, MD

^* Departments of Nutrition and Internal Medicine, Memorial Health University Medical Center, Savannah, Georgia

Correspondence: Correspondence: Lee Jimenez, RD, CNSD, 14923 Carry Back Drive, North Potomac, MD 20878. Electronic mail may be sent to jimenez.lee{at}comcast.net.

Background: Although enteral nutrition is considered the preferred strategy for nutrition support, it is often precluded by nasogastric feeding intolerance or the inability to place feeding access into the postpyloric position. In an effort to improve enteral nutrition (EN) outcomes at our institution, the nutrition support dietitian (NSD) began placing postpyloric feeding tubes (PPFT) in intensive care unit patients. Methods: Intensive care unit patients who received blind, bedside PPFT placements by the NSD (n = 18) were compared with a concurrent age- and diagnosis-matched control group that received standard nutritional care without NSD intervention (n = 18). Interruption of EN infusion, appropriateness of parenteral nutrition (PN) prescription (based on American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition guidelines), and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), as defined by the American College of Chest Physicians practice guidelines, were determined in each group. Results: The NSD was successful in positioning the PPFT at or distal to the third portion of the duodenum in 83% of attempts. The PPFT group demonstrated no interruption of enteral feeding compared with 56% in the control group (p < .01) and required 1 (6%) PN initiation in contrast to 8 (44%) in the control group (p < .01). There was a trend toward reduced VAP in the PPFT group (6% vs 28%, p = .07). Of the PN initiations in the control group, 88% were deemed to be potentially avoidable; 6 of 8 PNs were initiated because of gastric residuals. Conclusions: Enteral nutrition facilitated by NSD placement of postpyloric feeding access is associated with improved tube feeding tolerance and reduced PN use. Further studies are needed to evaluate a possible effect of postpyloric feeding on the incidence of VAP.

Nutrition in Clinical Practice, Vol. 19, No. 5, 518-522 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0115426504019005518


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Gray, C. Tynan, L. Reed, J. Hasse, M. Kramlich, S. Roberts, J. Suneson, J. Thompson, and J. Neylon Bedside Electromagnetic-Guided Feeding Tube Placement: An Improvement Over Traditional Placement Technique? Nutr Clin Pract, August 1, 2007; 22(4): 436 - 444. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Hollander and J. I. Mechanick Nutrition Support and the Chronic Critical Illness Syndrome Nutr Clin Pract, December 1, 2006; 21(6): 587 - 604. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Z. Bliss Monitors in Nutrition Support Nutr Clin Pract, October 1, 2004; 19(5): 421 - 422. [Full Text] [PDF]