Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background: Contamination of enteral feedings is an often overlooked source for bacterial infection in the intensive care unit. A new 1-L enteral feeding system with minimal chances of touching critical areas (Nutrison Pack) was compared with routinely used 0.5-L glass bottle systems. Methods: Patients admitted to intensive care were randomized to Pack or glass bottle feeding systems. Cultures were taken from the delivery sets 5 times during the day and from feeding containers and different sites of the system after 24 hours. Results: Bacteria were present in 3 of 112 glass bottles and in 2 of 95 Pack bags. True bacterial contamination (defined as >10² colony-forming units/mL, with same bacteria also present in the delivery set) was found in none of the Packs with a 12-h (69 Packs) or a 24-h (26 Packs) hanging time and in only 1 of the glass bottles with a hanging time of 24 hours, which exceeded the advised hanging time of 8 hours. In contrast, the contamination rate of delivery sets was 48%, with increasing bacterial counts over the day and 4 subsequent days. Bacteria mainly belonged to the group of potentially pathogenic bacteria (Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonaceae). They likely originated from throat, lungs, and stomach and grew into and along feeding tubes upwards until they reached the delivery set. Conclusions: Prolonged hanging times of Pack bags were safe with respect to bacterial contamination. However, the bacterial safety of enteral feedings is more likely to be endangered by the endogenous route of contamination rather than exogenous contamination, as high bacterial counts were found in feeding tubes and delivery sets as a result of retrograde growth.

The safety of prolonged use of enteral feedings has previously been assessed by risk analysis of contamination of the feeding container. A new 1-L enteral feeding system with minimal chances of touching critical areas was compared with routinely used 0.5-L glass bottle systems by culturing the contents of feeding containers and delivery sets.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderton A. Bacterial contamination of enteral feeds and feeding systems. Clin Nutr Suppl. 1993 ;1:816– 832.

Navajas MF-C, Chacon DJ, Solvas JFG, et al. Bacterial contamination of enteral feeds as a possible risk of nosocomial infection. J Hosp Infect. 1992;21:111– 120.

Beattie TK, Anderton A. Bacterial contamination of enteral feeding systems due to faulty handling procedures: a comparison of a new system with two established systems. J Hum Nutr Diet. 1998 ;11:313– 321.

Beattie TK, Anderton A. Microbiological evaluation of four enteral feeding systems which have been deliberately subjected to faulty handling procedures. J Hosp Infect. 1999 ;42:11– 20.

de Leeuw IH, Vandewoude MF. Bacterial contamination of enteral diets. Gut Suppl. 1986;1:56– 57.

Payne-James JJ, Rana SK, Bray MJ, et al. Retrograde (ascending) bacterial contamination of enteral diet administration systems. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1992;16:369– 373.

Anderton A, Nwoguh CE. Bacterial colonization of enteral feeding tubes. J Hum Nutr Diet. 1991 ;4:273– 280.

Schreiner RL, Eitzen H, Gfell MA, et al. Environmental contamination of continuous drip feedings. Pediatrics. 1979 ;63:232– 237.

Schroeder P, Fisher D, Volz M, et al. Microbial contamination of enteral feeding solutions in a community hospital. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1983;7:364– 368.

10.

Crocker KS, Krey SH, Markovic M, et al. Microbial growth in clinically used enteral delivery systems. Am J Infect Control. 1986 ;14:250– 256.

11.

Bauer TM, Ofner E, Just HM, et al. An epidemiological study assessing the relative importance of airborne and direct contact transmission of microorganisms in a medical intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect. 1990;15:301– 309.

12.

Weenk GH, Kemen M, Werner H-P. Risks of microbiological contamination of enteral feeds during the setup of enteral feeding systems.J Hum Nutr Diet. 1993;6:307– 316.

13.

Casewell MW, Phillips I. Epidemiological patterns of Klebsiella colonization and infection in an intensive care ward.J Hyg (Lond). 1978;80:295– 300.

14.

Casewell MW, Cooper JE, Webster M. Lesson of the week: enteral feeds contaminated with Enterobacter cloacae as a cause of septicaemia.BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 1981 ;282:973 .

15.

Baldwin BA, Zagoren AJ, Rose N. Bacterial contamination of continuously infused enteral alimentation with needle catheter jejunostomy: clinical implications. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1983 ;8:30– 33.

16.

Freedland CP, Roller RD, Wolfe BM, et al. Microbial contamination of continuous drip feedings. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1989 ;13:18– 22.

17.

Levy J, Van Laethem Y, Verhaegen G, et al. Contaminated enteral nutrition solutions as a cause of nosocomial bloodstream infection: a study using plasmid fingerprinting. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1989 ;13:228– 234.

18.

Thurn J, Crossley K, Gerdts A, et al. Enteral hyperalimentation as a source of nosocomial infection. J Hosp Infect. 1990 ;15:203– 217.

19.

Dominguez TE, Chalom R, Costarino AT Jr. The impact of adverse patient occurrences on hospital costs in the pediatric intensive care unit.Crit Care Med. 2001;29:169– 174.

20.

Garcia S, Roque J, Ruza F, et al. Infection and associated risk factors in the immediate postoperative period of pediatric liver transplantation: a study of 176 transplants. Clin Transplant. 1998 ;12:190– 197.

21.

van Alsenoy L, de Leeuw I, Delvigne C, et al. Ascending contamination of a jejunostomy feeding reservoir. Clin Nutr. 1985 ;4:95– 98.

22.

de Jonge E, Schultz MJ, Spanjaard L, et al. Effects of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on mortality and acquisition of resistant bacteria in the intensive care: a randomised controlled trial.Lancet. 2001;362:1011– 1016.

23.

Leonard EM, Van Saene HKF, Stoutenbeek CP, et al. An intrinsic pathogenicity index for microorganisms causing infection in a neonatal surgical unit. Microb Ecol Health Dis. 1990 ;3:151– 157.

24.

van Saene HK, Stoutenbeek CP, Zandstra DF, et al. Nosocomial infections in severely traumatized patients: magnitude of problem, pathogenesis, prevention and therapy. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 1987 ;38:347– 353.

25.

Murray AE, Mostafa SM, Van Saene HKF. Infection and the Anaesthesist. In: Van Saene HKF, Stoutenbeek CP, eds. Essentials in Clinical Microbiology Bailliére's Clinical Anaesthesiology. Eastbourne, UK: Baillière Tindall.1991 ;5(11):1– 26.

26.

Belknap DC, Davidson LJ, Flournoy DJ. Microorganisms and diarrhea in enterally fed intensive care unit patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1990;14:622– 628.

27.

Pottecher B, Goetz ML, Jacquemaire MA, et al. Enterocolites infectieuses chez les malades de réanimation alimentés par sonde gastrique. [Infectious enterocolitis in intensive care patients fed by nasogastric tube]. Ann Anesthesiol Fr. 1979 ;20:595– 602.

28.

Rees RG, Ryan J, Attrill HA, et al. Clinical evaluation of two-liter prepacked enteral diet delivery system: a controlled trial.JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1988 ;12:274– 277.

29.

Anderton A, Howard JP, Scott DW. Microbiological Control in Enteral Feeding: A Guidance Document: The Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Group. London: British Dietetic Association;1986 .

30.

Keohane P, Attrill H, Love M, et al. A controlled trial of aseptic enteral diet preparation: significant effects on bacterial contamination and nitrogen balance. Clin Nutr. 1983 ;2:119– 122.

31.

Fagerman KE. Limiting bacterial contamination of enteral nutrient solutions: 6-year history with reduction of contamination at two institutions.Nutr Clin Pract. 1992;7:31– 36.

32.

International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods. Specifications for Foods: Food Commodities. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1980:475– 477.

33.

US Food and Drug Administration. Compliance Program Guidance Manual: Food Composition, Standards, Labeling and Economics: Chapter 21: Compliance Program.

34.

McKinlay J, Wildgoose A, Wood W, et al. The effect of system design on bacterial contamination of enteral tube feeds. J Hosp Infect. 2001;47:138– 142.

35.

Mathus-Vliegen LM, Binnekade JM, de Haan RJ. Bacterial contamination of ready-to-use 1-L feeding bottles and administration sets in severely compromised intensive care patients. Crit Care Med. 2000 ;28:67– 73.

36.

Wagner DR, Elmore MF, Knoll DM. Evaluation of “closed” vs “open” systems for the delivery of peptide-based enteral diets.JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1994 ;18:453– 457.

37.

Bengoa JM, Hyde AL, Ducel G, et al. Sûreté bactériologique de la nutrition entérale à débit continu. [Bacteriological safety of enteral nutrition with continuous delivery]. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1985 ;115:903– 906.

38.

Kohn CL. The relationship between enteral formula contamination and length of enteral delivery set usage. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1991;15:567– 571.

39.

Perez SK, Brandt K. Enteral feeding contamination: comparison of diluents and feeding bag usage. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1989 ;13:306– 308.

40.

Sikrosi M, Allen F, Storm H. Tube feeding audit reveals hidden costs and risks of current practice. Nutr Clin Pract. 1998 ;13:283– 290.

41.

Working Group Infection Prevention. Werkgroep Infectie Preventie: Richtlijn 28a: Sondevoeding en Infectie Preventie [Working Group Infection Prevention: Guideline 28a: Tube Feeding and Infection Prevention]. 2001.

42.

Anderton A. Enteral tube feeds as a source of infection: can we reduce the risk? Nutrition. 1999 ;15:55– 57.

Analysis of Sites of Bacterial Contamination in an Enteral Feeding System

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References