Abstract:This study describes the advantages and disadvantages of several forms of enteral nutrition for patients with severe head injury (Glasgow Coma Scale Score [GCS], <12). Included in the study are nasoenteric nutrition delivery using blind, endoscopic, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and PEG with jejeunostomy (PEG/J), and open jejeunostomy tube placement methods. These methods are compared with parenteral delivery of nutrition. The study constituted a retrospective analysis of the success rate of early enteral feedings by blind, endoscopic PEG and PEG/J and by open jejeunostomy placement of small-bowel feeding tubes for 57 patients with severe head injury. The delivery cost of enteral nutrition per intensive care unit day was compared to the delivery cost of parenteral nutrition per intensive care unit day in the same group of patients. Fifty-three percent of patients were adequately maintained nutritionally with nasoenteric delivery alone and did not require parenteral feeding. The average number of days for initiation of either enteral or parenteral feedings was 1.8 +/- 0.2 days from injury [standard error of mean (SEM); range, 0-10 days]. An average of 3.3 days (range, 0-23 days) was required for feeding tube placement in all patients. For 70% of patients, tube placement was completed within 48 h after injury. Full-strength, full-rate enteral feedings were achieved by a mean of 4.9 days after injury. A total of 128 feeding tubes were placed while the patients were in the intensive care unit (ICU; 2.2 +/- 0.2 tubes per patient). Blind placement of feeding tubes into the small bowel was rarely achieved without repositioning. Endoscopic tube placement into the duodenum was achieved in 50% of patients, into the jejunum for 33% of patients, and into the stomach for 18% of patients. While in the intensive care unit, patients received an average of 77 +/- 2% of their measured energy expenditure (range, 57-114%). Eleven percent of patients experienced severe gastrointestinal problems. Other problems were associated with the inability to achieve or maintain access: dislodged tubes (30%), clogged or kinked tubes (21%), and mechanical access problems (7 %). Seventy-one percent of patients in barbiturate coma were able to tolerate early nasoenteric feedings. Aspiration pneumonitis occurred equally among patients fed nasogastrically and those fed nasoenterically. The overall aspiration rate was 14%. The cost of acute enteral feeding was $170 per day and that for parenteral feeding, $308 per day. We conclude that blind transpyloric feeding tube placement is difficult to achieve in patients with severe head injury; endoscopically guided placement is a better option. Endoscopic feeding tube placement most consistently allows for early enteral nutritional support in severe head injured patients. Limitations include the inability to establish and/or maintain enteral access, increased intracranial pressure, unstable cervical spinal injuries, facial fractures, and dedication of the physician to tube placement and monitoring.

Enteral Nutrition and Percutaneous Endoscopy Gastrostomy in Patients with Severe Head Injury

PEG--A New Way of Enteral Nutrition Feeding

Clinical Significance of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy for Patients with Severe Craniocerebral Injury

The Early Enteral Nutrition by Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Clinical Value of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy and Percutaneous Endoscopic Jejunostomy

[Clinical Value of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy and Jejunostomy].

Endoscopic Nasojejunal Feeding Tube Placement in Patients with Severe Hepatopancreatobiliary Diseases: a Retrospective Study of 184 Patients.

Clinical application of percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy in critically ill patients

Postpyloric enteral feeding costs for patients with severe head injury: blind placement, endoscopy, and PEG/J versus TPN

Clinical value of percutaneous endoscopic gastrotomy(8 case reports attached)

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for critically ill patients in a general intensive care unit

How Should This Patient with Repeated Aspiration Pneumonia Be Managed and Treated?-a Proposal of the Percutaneous ENdoscopIc Gastrostomy and Tracheostomy (penlight) Procedure.

Prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy and chemotherapy

Prophylactic Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) - The Importance of Nutritonal Support in Patients with Head and Neck Cancers (HNCs) or Neurogenic Dysphagia (ND)

[Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) for the management of dysphagia: experiences in the neurosurgical care unit]

Study of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy on Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Patients

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy/jejunostomy: an Effective Method for Home Enteral Nutrition Support

Perioperative application of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in radiative enteritis patients

S5100 Extensive Subcutaneous Emphysema Following Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement: A Case Report

Acceptability and outcomes of the Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement--patients' and care givers' perspectives

Role of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy for the Nutrition of Head and Neck Cancer Patients before and up to 6 Months after Cancer Treatment