Search

Contains fulltext : 290886.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) This guideline will inform physicians, nurses, dieticians, pharmacists, caregivers and other home parenteral nutrition (HPN) providers, as well as healthcare administrators and policy makers, about appropriate and safe HPN provision. This guideline will also inform patients requiring HPN. The guideline is based on previous published guidelines and provides an update of current evidence and expert opinion; it consists of 71 recommendations that address the indications for HPN, central venous access device (CVAD) and infusion pump, infusion catheter and CVAD site care, nutritional admixtures, program monitoring and management. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews and single clinical trials based on clinical questions were searched according to the PICO format. The evidence was evaluated and used to develop clinical recommendations implementing Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. The guideline was commissioned and financially supported by ESPEN and members of the guideline group were selected by ESPEN.

Main recommendationsESGE recommends considering the following indications for enteral tube insertion: (i) clinical conditions that make oral intake impossible (neurological conditions, obstructive causes); (ii) acute and/or chronic diseases that result in a catabolic state where oral intake becomes insufficient; and (iii) chronic small-bowel obstruction requiring a decompression gastrostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of temporary feeding tubes placed through a natural orifice (either nostril) in patients expected to require enteral nutrition (EN) for less than 4 weeks. If it is anticipated that EN will be required for more than 4 weeks, percutaneous access should be considered, depending on the clinical setting.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the gastric route as the primary option in patients in need of EN support. Only in patients with altered/unfavorable gastric anatomy (e. g. after previous surgery), impaired gastric emptying, intolerance to gastric feeding, or with a high risk of aspiration, should the jejunal route be chosen.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests that recent gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding due to peptic ulcer disease with risk of rebleeding should be considered to be a relative contraindication to percutaneous enteral access procedures, as should hemodynamic or respiratory instability.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE suggests that the presence of ascites and ventriculoperitoneal shunts should be considered to be additional risk factors for infection and, therefore, further preventive precautions must be taken in these cases.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that percutaneous tube placement (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy [PEG], percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension [PEG-J], or direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy [D-PEJ]) should be considered to be a procedure with high hemorrhagic risk, and that in order to reduce this risk, specific guidelines for antiplatelet or anticoagulant use should be followed strictly.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends refraining from PEG placement in patients with advanced dementia.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends refraining from PEG placement in patients with a life expectancy shorter than 30 days.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence*.

This guideline will inform physicians, nurses, dieticians, pharmacists, caregivers and other home parenteral nutrition (HPN) providers, as well as healthcare administrators and policy makers, about appropriate and safe HPN provision. This guideline will also inform patients requiring HPN. The guideline is based on previous published guidelines and provides an update of current evidence and expert opinion; it consists of 71 recommendations that address the indications for HPN, central venous access device (CVAD) and infusion pump, infusion line and CVAD site care, nutritional admixtures, program monitoring and management. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews and single clinical trials based on clinical questions were searched according to the PICO format. The evidence was evaluated and used to develop clinical recommendations implementing Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. The guideline was commissioned and financially supported by ESPEN and members of the guideline group were selected by ESPEN.

This guideline will inform physicians, nurses, dieticians, pharmacists, caregivers and other home enteral nutrition (HEN) providers about the indications and contraindications for HEN, and its implementation and monitoring. Home parenteral nutrition is not included but will be addressed in a separate ESPEN guideline. This guideline will also inform interested patients requiring HEN. The guideline is based on current evidence and expert opinion and consists of 61 recommendations that address the indications for HEN, relevant access devices and their use, the products recommended, the monitoring and criteria for termination of HEN, and the structural requirements needed to perform HEN. We searched for meta-analyses, systematic reviews and single clinical trials based on clinical questions according to the PICO format. The evidence was evaluated and used to develop clinical recommendations implementing the SIGN method. The guideline was commissioned and financially supported by ESPEN and the members of the guideline group were selected by ESPEN.

Summary This ESPEN practical guideline will inform physicians, nurses, dieticians, pharmacists, caregivers and other home enteral nutrition (HEN) providers in a concise way about the indications and contraindications for HEN, as well as its implementation and monitoring. This guideline will also inform interested patients requiring HEN. Home parenteral nutrition is not included but will be addressed in a separate ESPEN guideline. The guideline is based on the ESPEN scientific guideline published before, which consists of 61 recommendations that have been reproduced and renumbered, along with the associated commentaries that have been shorted compared to the scientific guideline. Evidence grades and consensus levels are indicated. The guideline was commissioned and financially supported by ESPEN and the members of the guideline group were selected by ESPEN.

Several nursing practices are related to oral, enteral, or parenteral feeding on the intensive care unit. Nurses are the group of health care professionals who provide 24-hour care for patients. Therefore, they play a key role in not only identifying nutritional problems but also in ensuring the success of nutritional therapy by implementing evidence-based feeding protocols and ongoing care for (par)enteral access devices. Having an up-to-date evidence-based knowledge about nutritional support can increase safety and quality of care and can contribute to better outcomes. In this narrative review, the most recent European intensive care unit nutrition guidelines and related research are highlighted, and where appropriate, specific applications for nursing practice are described.

Main recommendationsESGE recommends the “pull” technique as the standard method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the direct percutaneous introducer (“push”) technique for PEG placement in cases where the “pull” method is contraindicated, for example in severe esophageal stenosis or in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) or esophageal cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the intravenous administration of a prophylactic single dose of a beta-lactam antibiotic (or appropriate alternative antibiotic, in the case of allergy) to decrease the risk of post-procedural wound infection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends that inadvertent insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) into the respiratory tract should be considered a serious but avoidable adverse event (AE).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that each institution should have a dedicated protocol to confirm correct positioning of NGTs placed “blindly” at the patient’s bedside; this should include: radiography, pH testing of the aspirate, and end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring, but not auscultation alone.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends confirmation of correct NGT placement by radiography in high-risk patients (intensive care unit [ICU] patients or those with altered consciousness or absent gag/cough reflex).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that EN may be started within 3 – 4 hours after uncomplicated placement of a PEG or PEG-J.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends that daily tube mobilization (pushing inward) along with a loose position of the external PEG bumper (1 – 2 cm from the abdominal wall) could mitigate the risk of development of buried bumper syndrome.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Objectives: Chest X-ray imaging is frequently used for verifying the position of a blindly inserted nasogastric tube. A high-quality X-ray increases the likelihood of conclusive visibility of tube tip positioning, thus avoiding risks due to a misplaced tube (e.g., pulmonary intubation, pneumothorax, small bowel insertion). Therefore, this study aims to determine patient-related and environmental factors affecting the visibility of nasogastric tubes on X-ray in adults. Methods: A retrospective descriptive analysis of routinely collected clinical data was performed on all included patients (N = 215) from a prospective randomized trial in a general hospital. A chest X-ray was taken of each patient needing a nasogastric feeding tube, after which visibility and positioning of the tube on X-ray was independently evaluated by 3 radiologists. Results: In 14.9% (n = 32) of all patients, image quality was insufficient, so no conclusive visibility of nasogastric tube positioning could be found. A patient-related predictor regression model (sex, age, body mass index) explained 21% of variance for an insufficient visibility of the nasogastric tube (Nagelkerke R2 = 0.21). An environmental factor regression model demonstrates a guidewire being inside the tube or not during X-ray as a predictor for a conclusive visibility on X-ray. Conclusions: High body mass index, male sex, and the absence of a guidewire inside the nasogastric tube at the time of chest X-ray are associated with a risk of insufficient visibility of the tube on X-ray. Patient profiles can be defined in which supplementary attention is needed when obtaining chest X-rays whose purpose is to confirm nasogastric tube positioning. Key Points: • The quality of chest X-rays to confirm the positioning of nasogastric tubes in adults can be improved considerably. • There are several factors influencing the confirmation of nasogastric tube positioning on X-ray. • Defining patient profiles at risk for an insufficient visibility of the tube on X-ray will indirectly contribute to an improvement of the chest X-ray quality.

Background As nasogastric feeding tube insertion is a frequently applied, non-risk-free nursing technique, a high level of evidence-based nursing care is required. Little evidence is available regarding the accurate determination of the insertion length of nasogastric feeding tubes. The method of using the nose-earlobe-xiphoid distance as measurement is inadequate and not supported by evidence. Findings from a recent randomized trial led to an alternative calculation: the corrected nose-earlobe-xiphoid distance formula: (nose-earlobe-xiphoid distance × 0.38696) + 30.37 + 6 cm. Objectives To test the accuracy of the corrected nose-earlobe-xiphoid distance formula for determining the required nasogastric feeding tube insertion length in adults admitted on an intensive care unit and to investigate the probability to successfully obtain gastric aspirate for pH measurement. Design Prospective, single‐center observational study. Participants and methods Adult intensive care unit patients in a general hospital (N = 218) needing a small-bore nasogastric feeding tube were included between March and September 2018. Correct tip positioning was defined as a tube tip located > 3 cm under the lower esophageal sphincter. Tip positioning was verified using X-ray. Results All nasogastric feeding tube tips were correctly positioned > 3 cm under the lower esophageal sphincter. The chance of successfully obtaining gastric aspirate within 2 h after placement of the tube was 77.9%. Conclusions With all tips positioned > 3 cm in the stomach and zero tubes migrating back into the esophagus, the corrected nose-earlobe-xiphoid distance formula can be considered a more accurate method to determine nasogastric feeding tube insertion length.

Background Several studies have shown that the nose‐earlobe‐xiphoid distance (NEX) is inadequate to estimate the insertion length of nasogastric tubes. An alternative approach tested in these studies, which leads to > 90% well‐placed nasogastric tubes, used a corrected calculation of the NEX: (NEX × 0.38696) + 30.37. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether using the corrected NEX was more successful than the NEX in determining the insertion length. The secondary aim was to investigate the likelihood to successfully obtain gastric aspirate. Methods Adult patients in a general hospital (N = 215) needing a nasogastric tube were randomized to the control (NEX) or intervention group (corrected NEX). Tip positioning was verified using X‐ray. Correct tip positioning was defined as between 3 and 10 cm under the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). Results In >20% of all patients, both methods underestimated the required tube length for correct positioning. The NEX showed an overestimation (17.2%) of the insertion length (>10 cm under the LES) compared with the corrected NEX (4.8%). There was no difference (P = 0.938) between the 2 groups in obtaining gastric aspirate (55.6% vs 56%). However, correct tip positioning resulted in a fourfold increase of obtaining gastric aspirate. Conclusions Both methods resulted in a high risk of incorrectly placed tubes due to malposition of the tip near the LES or distal esophagus. This may increase the risk of reflux and pulmonary aspiration. Based on these results, the development of more reliable methods requires consideration. ispartof: NUTRITION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE vol:33 issue:6 pages:843-850 ispartof: location:United States status: published

BackgroundPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is a commonly used endoscopic technique where a tube is placed through the abdominal wall mainly to administer fluids, drugs and/or enteral nutrition. Several placement techniques are described in the literature with the ‘pull’ technique (Ponsky-Gardener) as the most popular one. Independent of the method used, placement includes a ‘blind’ perforation of the stomach through a small acute surgical abdominal wound. It is a generally safe technique with only few major complications. Nevertheless these complications can be sometimes life-threatening or generate serious morbidity.MethodA narrative review of the literature of major complications in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.ResultsThis review was written from a clinical viewpoint focusing on prevention and management of major complications and documented scientific evidence with real cases from more than 20 years of clinical practice.ConclusionsMajor complications are rare but prevention, early recognition and popper management are important.

Summary Background Different disciplines should be represented in Nutritional Support Teams, e.g. a physician, dietician, pharmacist and a nurse. The latter one can function as an Advanced Practice Nurse, which implicates that he or she must have sufficiently thorough knowledge, attitudes and competences to fulfill the profile of a nutritional expert in the field of clinical nutrition. Methods Description of the scope of practice, education and added value related to a Nutrition Support Nurse, based on detailed published competency profiles. Results The described competencies reflect the advanced role and clinical expertise of a Nutrition Support Nurse. She can make a significant contribution to the overall quality of nutritional care, uncover the multidimensional aspects of nutrition, monitor effectiveness/ appropriateness of nutrition therapy and improve clinical outcomes. Conclusions A Nutrition Support Nurse can incorporate nutrition nursing in the overall nutrition support, acting as an important player for users, carers and the healthcare organization in general.

Background Blind placement of a nasogastric feeding tube is a common nursing procedure. Confirmation of the correct position in the stomach is warranted to avoid serious complications such as misplacement in the lung. Testing pH of aspirate from a tube is one of the techniques to confirm the tip position. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the auscultatory method and pH measurement with a pH cut-off point of 5.5 after tube insertion and to compare this with the ‘gold standard': an abdominal X-ray. Also the feasibility of the pH method was evaluated. Materials and methods Large prospective observational study in a general hospital. In adult hospitalised patients, the positioning of 331 feeding tubes was tested using two different methods to predict tube position in the stomach. Results In 98.9% ( n =178) of aspirate samples with a pH≤5.5, the tube was located in the stomach. If an aspirate could be obtained, the results of pH measurements showed a sensitivity of 78.4% and a specificity of 85.7%. Obtaining aspirate initially after placement was possible in approximately half of cases but after taking additional measures (including administration of air into the tube, side-positioning of the patient and re-aspiration after one hour) this increased to 81.6%. The sensitivity of the auscultatory method was 79% while the specificity was 61%. Conclusions A pH of≤5.5 from tube aspirate is adequate to check the position of the tube in the stomach. Additional measures improve the success to obtain an aspirate from the tube. The auscultatory method is unreliable.