• Daniel A Neumann and Mark H DeLegge.
• Department of Gastroenterology, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
• Crit. Care Med. 2002 Jul 1; 30 (7): 1436-8.

ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of intensive care unit patients fed through a nasogastric vs. a nasal-small-bowel tube including the time from tube placement to feeding, time to reach goal rate, and adverse events.DesignSixty patients were prospectively randomized to receive gastric or small-bowel tube feedings. Nursing staff attempted to place a feeding tube in the desired position, and placement was confirmed radiographically after each bedside attempt. After two unsuccessful attempts, the feeding tube was placed under fluoroscopy. Feedings were started at 30 mL/hr and advanced to the patient's specific goal rate.SettingTwenty-bed medical intensive care unit.PatientsSixty medical patients admitted/transferred to the intensive care unit.InterventionsTube feeds were held for 2 hrs if any residual was >200 mL.MeasurementsTimes were recorded at the initial tube insertion, onset of feeding, achievement of goal rate, and termination of feeding. Adverse outcomes included witnessed aspiration, vomiting, and clinical/radiographic evidence of aspiration. Patients were followed up for the duration of feeding, until leaving the intensive care unit, or for a maximum of 14 days.Main ResultsPatients fed in the stomach received nutrition sooner from initial placement attempt (11.2 hrs vs. 27.0 hrs) and with fewer attempts (one vs. two) than those fed in the small bowel. Patients achieve goal rate sooner (28.8 hrs vs. 43.0 hrs) with gastric feeding compared with small-bowel feeding. There was no difference in aspiration events.ConclusionsGastric feeding demonstrates no increase in aspiration or other adverse outcomes compared with small-bowel feeding in the intensive care unit. Gastric feeding can be started and advanced to goal sooner with fewer placement attempts than small-bowel feeding.

17 keywords...

hide…