Gastric and Enteral Access for Feeding in Critically Ill Patients
- 100 Downloads
Purpose of Review
The purpose of this study is to review recent advancements, trends, and recommendations in gastric and enteral feeding with a focus on critically ill patients.
Enteral feeding continues to serve as the mainstay for nutritional support in critically ill patients and is favored over parenteral nutrition, though recent trials suggest no substantial difference in outcomes between the two methods. Radiologic and endoscopic guidance remain the most common methods for enteral access. Additionally, recent advancements in enteral access technique and trials on best practices for timing and composition of nutritional support in critically ill patients continue to reduce complications, improve outcomes, and reduce cost.
Nutritional support improves outcomes in critically ill patients, and the safe and durable establishment of enteral access is an important component in the care of these patients.
KeywordsNaso/oral-gastric Gastrostomy Jejunostomy Gastrojejunostomy Nutrition Percutaneous access
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 2.Martindale RG, McClave SA, Vanek VW, et al. Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition: Executive Summary. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:1757–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Elke G, van Zanten ARH, Lemieux M, McCall M, Jeejeebhoy KN, Kott M, et al. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care. 2016;1–14.Google Scholar
- 8.Gomes CAR, Andriolo RB, Bennett C, Lustosa SAS, Matos D, Waisberg DR, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; CD008096.Google Scholar
- 9.•• Alkhawaja S, Martin C, Butler RJ, Gwadry-Sridhar F. Post-pyloric versus gastric tube feeding for preventing pneumonia and improving nutritional outcomes in critically ill adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; CD008875. Recent systematic review with meta-analysis evaluating outcomes from gastric versus post-pyloric feeding in critically ill patients. Outcomes measured included but not limited to mortality, ICU length of stay, and pneumonia.Google Scholar
- 12.Itkin M, DeLegge MH, Fang JC, et al. Multidisciplinary practical guidelines for gastrointestinal access for enteral nutrition and decompression from the Society of Interventional Radiology and American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, with endorsement by Canadian Interventional Radiological Association (CIRA) and Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE). J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22:1089–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.• Bechtold ML, Mir FA, Boumitri C, Palmer LB, Evans DC, Kiraly LN, et al. Long-term nutrition: a clinician’s guide to successful long-term enteral access in adults. Nutr Clin Pract. 2016; doi: 10.1177/0884533616670103. Comprehensive review article which summarizes and answers common questions related to long-term enteral access with an emphasis on endoscopic techniques. Topics visited include indications, complications, and maintenance. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Oterdoom LH, Marinus Oterdoom DL, Ket JCF, van Dijk JMC, Scholten P. Systematic review of ventricular peritoneal shunt and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a safe combination. J Neurosurg. 2016;1–6.Google Scholar
- 27.Axelsson L, Silander E, Nyman J, Bove M, Johansson L, Hammerlid E. Effect of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube on swallowing in advanced head and neck cancer: a randomized controlled study. Head Neck. 2017;51:787–8.Google Scholar
- 28.Fung E, Strosberg DS, Jones EL, Dettorre R, Suzo A, Meara MP, et al. Incidence of abdominal wall metastases following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement in patients with head and neck cancer. Surg Endosc. 2016;15:872.Google Scholar
- 31.•• Sheth RA, Koottappillil B, Kambadakone A, Ganguli S, Thabet A, Mueller PR. A Quality improvement initiative to reduce catheter exchange rates for fluoroscopically guided gastrostomy tubes. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27:251–259. Identified procedural and patient risk-factors associated with PRG complications which were then implemented in a quality improvement study that resulted in fewer PRG exchanges. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Lipp A, Lusardi G. Systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;CD005571.Google Scholar
- 36.Ridtitid W, Lehman GA, Watkins JL, McHenry L, Fogel EL, Sherman S, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes from percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension. Surg Endosc. 2016;80:34.Google Scholar
- 40.• Lewis S, Jackson S, Latchford A. Randomized study of radiologic vs endoscopic placement of gastrojejunostomies in patients at risk of aspiration pneumonia. Nutr Clin Pract. 2014;29:498–503. A randomized study comparing radiologic versus endoscopic placement of gastrojejunostimes which demonstrated fewer reversible blockage and displacement in patients undergoing radiologic technique. CrossRefGoogle Scholar