A Descriptive Study of enteral tube feeding among adults in an acute care tertiary hospital-patient selection, characteristics and complications
Shin Yuh Ang,Mei Ling Lim,Hock Soo Ong,Janet Ngian Choo Chong,Xin Ping Ng,Madeleine Lam,Mei Mei Chan,Violeta Lopez,Siew Hoon Lim
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnesp.2020.03.021
Abstract:Background: It is vital to develop a better understanding of the use of different modalities for enteral feeding and its associated complications, given differences in funding support, community resources and infrastructure available to support home enteral feeding in an acute care tertiary hospital. Aim: To provide a description of the clinical characteristics of patients on long-term enteral feeding and incidence of associated complications. Methods: A retrospective case records review study design was adopted. Medical records of patients discharged from a tertiary hospital with long-term nasogastric tube (NGT) or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding for the first time during the period of January 2010 to June 2017 were reviewed. Data collected include patient's demographics, reason for enteral feeding, morbidity and nutritional status upon initiation of NGT and PEG feeding, readmission episodes and documented complications (associated with enteral feeding) within one-year post discharge. Results: Records of 120 NGT and 118 PEG patients were analysed. Significant age and gender differences were found with older patients being more likely to be placed on NGT [NGT (Mean 79.1, SD 11.3) vs. PEG (Mean 67.1, SD 12.6)] and higher number of females in the NGT group as compared to the PEG group (NGT 59.2% vs. PEG 31.4%). Majority of patients were fed by caregivers in the NGT (99.2%) as compared to the PEG (51.7%) group. Patients with cancer were more likely to be on PEG feeding (NGT 5%, PEG 70.3%), whereas patients with stroke-related diagnoses were more likely to be on NGT feeding (NGT 48% vs. PEG 8.5%). The total Charlson Comorbidity score was also significantly different between the NGT (mean = 5.7; SD = 1.5) and PEG (mean = 4.5; SD = 2.0) groups. A higher number of patients with PEG feeding had no complications (47.5%) as compared to the NGT group (8.3%). Patients who received NGT feeding were more likely experience tube blockage [OR 0.03, 95% CI (0.001-0.72), p = 0.03], secondary displacement of tube [OR 0.04, 95% CI (0.002-0.72), p = 0.03] and accidental tube removal [OR 0.03, 95% CI (0.004-0.21), p < 0.001]. Conclusion: Overall, patients who received NGT feeding experienced more complications than those who had PEG feeding. The choice for NGT or PEG feeding may be influenced by patient related factors as well as the presence of caregivers, which need to be considered in the improvement of enteral nutrition services in the local context.