Early feeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in patients who require trauma and surgical intensive care: A retrospective cohort study. Issue 5 (27th January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Shahmanyan, Davit; Lawrence, Jeffrey C.; Lollar, Daniel I.; Hamill, Mark E.; Faulks, Emily R.; Collier, Bryan R.; Chestovich, Paul J.; Bower, Katie L.
• Is Part Of: JPEN, Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition. Volume 46:Issue 5(2022)
• Page Start: 1160
• Page End: 1166
• Publication Date: 2022-01-27
• Subjects: enteral nutrition -- fasting -- gastrostomy -- intensive care unit -- mechanical ventilation -- PEG -- surgical critical care -- surgical ICU -- trauma -- treatment outcome; Parenteral feeding -- Periodicals; Enteral feeding -- Periodicals; 615.85484
• DOI: 10.1002/jpen.2303
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0148-6071

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Critically ill patients experience interruptions in enteral nutrition (EN). For ventilated patients who undergo percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement, postprocedure fasting times vary from 1 to 24 h depending on the surgeon's preference. There is no evidence to support delayed feeding (DF) after PEG placement. This study's purpose was to determine if there is an increased complication rate associated with early feeding (EF) after PEG. Methods: 150 adult ventilated patients in the trauma and surgical intensive care unit (TSICU) at a level I trauma center underwent PEG placement in March 2015 through May 2018 by one of six surgical intensivists. Retrospective review revealed variable post‐PEG fasting practices: one started EN at 1 h, two started at 4 h, two started at 6 h, and one started at 24 h. Time to initiation of EN and complication rates were assessed. Patients were divided into EF (<4) and DF (≥4 h) groups. Results: Median postprocedure fasting time was 5.5 h. The overall complication rate was 3.3%, with a feeding intolerance rate of 0.7% and aspiration rate of 0%. There was no difference in complication rate for EF (3.1%) as compared with DF (3.4%) (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.10–8.52; P = 0.7). Conclusion: Complication rates following PEG placement in ventilated TSICU patients are low and do not change with EF compared with DF. EF is probably safe.