Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2004
Experience of post-pyloric feeding in seriously ill patients in clinical practice.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Boulton-Jones J R, Lewis J, Jobling J C, Teahon K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Maintaining nutrition is an integral part of patient care and when it is possible enteral nutrition is regarded as superior to parenteral nutrition. Post-pyloric feeding may enable enteral feeding to be maintained in patients who cannot tolerate nasogastric feeding. The success of post-pyloric feeding in routine clinical practice is uncertain.
METHODS: One hundred and forty six consecutive patients who had 150 separate episodes of post-pyloric feeding were identified. Casenotes were reviewed to assess indication for post-pyloric feeding, prior use of alternative methods of feeding, success of achieving nutritional requirements and patient outcome.
RESULTS: A post-pyloric tube was successfully placed in 138 (92%) and nutritional requirements were met by post-pyloric feeding alone in 124 (83%). Post-pyloric feeding was used for between 2 and 254 days (median 14 days). Conditions for which post-pyloric feeding was used to administer nutritional support included burn injury, pancreatitis, sepsis, post-operative gastric stasis, bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy induced vomiting. Fifty (33%) patients had an attempt at nasogastric feeding and 33 (22%) were on total parenteral nutrition before post-pyloric feeding was commenced. There was one major complication of a jejunal ulcer bleed in the series. Minor complications included displacement of the nasojejunal tube and failure to absorb feed related to gastrointestinal dysfunction.
CONCLUSIONS: Post-pyloric feeding can be successfully used to maintain enteral nutrition in patients who would otherwise require parenteral nutrition.
METHODS: One hundred and forty six consecutive patients who had 150 separate episodes of post-pyloric feeding were identified. Casenotes were reviewed to assess indication for post-pyloric feeding, prior use of alternative methods of feeding, success of achieving nutritional requirements and patient outcome.
RESULTS: A post-pyloric tube was successfully placed in 138 (92%) and nutritional requirements were met by post-pyloric feeding alone in 124 (83%). Post-pyloric feeding was used for between 2 and 254 days (median 14 days). Conditions for which post-pyloric feeding was used to administer nutritional support included burn injury, pancreatitis, sepsis, post-operative gastric stasis, bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy induced vomiting. Fifty (33%) patients had an attempt at nasogastric feeding and 33 (22%) were on total parenteral nutrition before post-pyloric feeding was commenced. There was one major complication of a jejunal ulcer bleed in the series. Minor complications included displacement of the nasojejunal tube and failure to absorb feed related to gastrointestinal dysfunction.
CONCLUSIONS: Post-pyloric feeding can be successfully used to maintain enteral nutrition in patients who would otherwise require parenteral nutrition.