Clinical Costs of Feeding Tube Placement

Abstract

Background: Although small-bore tube placement is common, insertion can lead to serious complications. We investigated the use of radiographs, fluoroscopy, feeding tubes, and complications associated with blind feeding-tube placement. Methods: The electronic and paper records of adult patients receiving a small-bore feeding tube in 2005 were retrospectively reviewed for the following variables: demographics, desired location (gastric or postpyloric), number of radiographs, number of tubes per individual, time interval between medical prescription, tube placement and delivery of the diet, complications, transport for fluoroscopy, and hospital location of placement (intensive care unit vs floor). Results: We identified 1822 tubes placed into 729 patients (male: 449, 61.6%; female: 280, 38.4%; median age: 59 years old, range 18–98). All tubes were placed by nurses unless fluoroscopically placed in radiology or placed after head and neck surgery in the operating room. An average of 2.5 (range 1–20) tubes was used per patient. A total of 2696 radiographs were obtained for an average of 3.7 (range 0–32) films per patient and 1.5 (range 0–11) per feeding tube. Successful placement was higher for intragastric (93.3%) than for postpyloric position (60.4%; p < .001). Fluoroscopy was needed in 18.6% of the patients, mostly for postpyloric insertion (p < .001). Respiratory tree misplacement occurred in 23 (3.2%) patients; 9 (1.2%) had a pneumothorax and 4 (0.5%) died. Patients with a malpositioned feeding tube underwent more tube insertions (6.8 ± 5.4; range 2–20) than patients without complications (2.2 ± 1.8; range 1–18; p < .001). Conclusions: The incidence of airway misplacement of feeding tubes (3.2%) at a major tertiary referral university hospital was alarming. Mandatory radiographs may eliminate the risk of respiratory administration of feedings but not misplacements. The associated costs of radiographs, unsuccessful placements, fluoroscopy, and complications are significant. A solution to this problem will require focused attention and development of specific protocols, possibly using new technologies.

Although small-bore tubes are commonly used, their insertion can lead to serious complications. A mandatory radiograph may eliminate the risk of respiratory administration of feedings but not misplacements.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Peter JV, Moran JL, Phillips-Hughes J. A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes of early enteral versus early parenteral nutrition in hospitalized patients. Crit Care Med. 2005 ;33:213– 220.

Gramlich L, Kichian K, Pinilla J, Rodych NJ, Dhaliwal R, Heyland DKL. Does enteral nutrition compared to parenteral nutrition result in better outcomes in critically ill adult patients? A systematic review of the literature. Nutrition. 2004 ;20:843– 848.

Marik PE, Zaloga GP. Early enteral nutrition in acutely ill patients: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2001 ;29:2264– 2270.

Marik PE, Zaloga GP. Gastric versus post-pyloric feeding: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2003 ;7:R46– R51.

Cresci G, Martindale R. Bedside placement of small bowel feeding tubes in hospitalized patients: a new role for the dietitian.Nutrition. 2003;19:843– 846.

Marderstein E, Simmons R, Ochoa J. Patient safety: effect of institutional protocols on adverse events related to feeding tube placement in the critically ill. J Am Coll Surg. 2004 ;199:39– 47.

Paz HL, Weinar M, Sherman MS. Motility agents for the placement of weighted and unweighted feeding tubes in critically ill patients.Intensive Care Med. 1996 22 : 301–304.

Kolbitsch C, Pomaroli A, Lorenz I, Gassner M, Luger TJ. Pneumothorax following nasogastric feeding tube insertion in a tracheostomized patient after bilateral lung transplantation. Intensive Care Med. 1997;23:440– 442.

McWey RE, Curry NS, Schabel SI, Reines HD. Complications of nasoenteric feeding tubes. Am J Surg. 1988 ;55:253– 257.

10.

Baskin WN. Acute complications associated with bedside placement of feeding tubes. Nutr Pract Clin. 2006 ;21:40– 55.

11.

Foote JA, Kemmeter PR, Prichard PA, et al. A randomized trial of endoscopic and fluoroscopic placement of postpyloric feeding tubes in critically ill patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2004 ;28:154– 157.

12.

Young RJ, Chapman MJ, Fraser R, Vozzo R, Chorley DP, Creed S. A novel technique for post-pyloric feeding tube placement in critically ill patients: a pilot study. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2005 ;33:229– 234.

13.

Metheny NA, Titler MG. Assessing placement of feeding tubes.Am J Nurs. 2001;101:36– 45.

14.

Metheny NA, Meert K. Monitoring feeding tube placement: a review.Nutr Clin Pract. 2004;19:487– 495.

15.

Taylor SJ, Clemente R. Confirmation of nasogastric tube position by pH testing. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2005 ;18:371– 375.

16.

Howes DW, Shelley ES, Pickett W. Colorimetric carbon dioxide detector to determine accidental tracheal feeding tube placement. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52:428– 432.

17.

Gabriel SA, Ackerman RJ. Placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes using external magnetic guidance. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2004 ;28:119– 122.

18.

Bercik P, Schlageter V, Mauro M, Rawlinson J, Kucera P, Armstrong D. Noninvasive verification of nasogastric tube placement using a magnet-tracking system: a pilot study in health subjects. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2005;29:305– 310.

19.

Keidan I, Gallagher J. Electrocardiogram-guided placement of enteral tubes. Crit Care Med. 2000 ;28:2631– 2633.

20.

Montejo JC, Grau T, Acosta J, et al; Nutritional and Metabolic Working Group of the Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Coronary Units. Multicenter, prospective, randomized, single-blind study comparing the efficacy and gastrointestinal complications of early jejunal feeding with early gastric feeding in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:796– 800.

21.

Sorokin R, Gottlieb JE. Enhancing patient safety during feeding-tube insertion: a review of more than 2000 insertions. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2006;30:440– 445.