Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 145–148 | Cite as

Study on the use of drugs in patients with enteral feeding tubes

  • Isabela HeineckEmail author
  • Denise Bueno
  • Joana Heydrich
Short Research Report


Objective To describe the use of drugs in patients using Enteral Feeding Tubes (EFT) at a University Hospital in southern Brazil. Method A total of 315 medical charts of patients that had used EFT were analyzed. Variables of interest were: days the tube was used, number and frequency of drugs administered by the tube, pharmaceutical dosage forms and the number of tube exchanges per patients. Results The mean of age of the patients was 59 years (SD = 21) and 59% were male. A mean number of drugs prescribed per patient with tube administration were five. Almost all patients (95%) used some drugs in solid pharmaceutical preparations, mostly tablets (72%). About 158 different drugs were prescribed; for 23% of these, the prescription of liquid dosage forms was possible. The chance of changing the enteral tube was greater for patients that used more than five drugs enterally (OR = 4.8, 95% CI 2.8–8.2) and that had more than 13 drug administrations per day (OR = 5.3, 95% CI 3.1–9.3). Conclusion This study provides evidence that patients using more drugs enterally have a greater chance of having their enteral tube exchanged. Furthermore, it suggests a lack of knowledge of the health team with regard to the appropriateness of pharmaceutical preparations for this administration.


Brazil Drugs Enteral feeding tube Forms of administration Pharmaceutical preparations 



The authors thank to persons that contribute with this study, and the Department of Pharmacy and Service Nurses at the Porto Alegre Clinical Hospital.


Research Incentive Fund of Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre.

Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Behnken I, Gaschott T, Stein J. Enteral nutrition: drug administration via feeding tube. Z Gastroenterol. 2005;43(11):1231–41. doi: 10.1055/s-2005-858737.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bates DW, Spell N, Cullen DJ, Burdick E, Laird N, Petersen LA, et al. The costs of adverse drug events. JAMA. 1997;277:307–11. doi: 10.1001/jama.277.4.307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Metheny N, Eisenberg P, Mcsweeney M. Effect of feeding tube properties and three irrigants on clogging rates. Nurs Res. 1988;37:165–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thomson FC, Naysmith MR, Lindsay A. Managing drug therapy in patients receiving enteral and parenteral nutrition. Hosp Pharm. 2000;7:155–64.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Linjakumpu T, Hartikainen S, Klaukka T, Veijola J, Kivelä SL, Isoaho R. Use of medications and polypharmacy are increasing among the elderly. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:809–17. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00411-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bauer LA. Interference of oral phenytoin absorption by continuous nasogastric feeding. Neurology. 1992;32:570–2.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engle KK, Hannawa TE. Techniques for administering oral medications to critical care patients receiving continuous enteral nutrition. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1999;56:1441–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dickerson RN. Medication administration considerations for patients with enteral feeding tubes. Hosp Pharm. 2004;39:84–90.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trissel LA. Trissel’s—stability of compounded formulations. 3rd ed. Washington: American Pharmaceutical Association; 2005. ISBN 978-1-58212-067-6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Löser C, et al. Guidelines on enteral nutrition—percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Clin Nutr. 2005;24:848–61. Available in European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism in Accessed in 2 June 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Drug Production and Control, Pharmacy FacultyFederal University of Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations