Seegmiller, Sara L

Abstract Background With data demonstrating benefit, the prevalence of home enteral nutrition (HEN) has increased significantly over the last few decades. Despite this increase, there remains a paucity of data regarding real‐world use of HEN including clinical outcomes and complications. Methods Descriptive analysis of prospectively maintained database of our specialized HEN program was undertaken. Patients who received care in our program with HEN initiation date between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, were included in the analysis. Data regarding demographic information, anthropometrics, enteral nutrition (EN) regimen, electrolytes, and nutrition therapy history were included and tracked until July 31, 2021. Results During the study period, 1600 patients initiated HEN treatment under our care. Majority of the study population needed EN therapy due to malignancy and its complications, including malignant dysphagia or mechanical obstruction (60.6%) followed by neurodegenerative diseases (7.5%). By the end of the study period, a majority of the patients (82%) stopped HEN treatment. Of these, 44.2% achieved EN goals and/or oral autonomy. Patients continued HEN treatment for a median of 100 (interquartile range, 32–301) days. Overall, 53.2% of patients experienced/reported at least one HEN‐related complication that was clinically managed by the HEN team. Complications included tube‐related, enteral feeding intolerance (EFI), and electrolyte shifts. Conclusion In our study population, HEN was most utilized to manage malignancy‐related complications, including dysphagia. Unfortunately, complications, including EFI and tube‐related complications, remained quite prevalent. Further evaluation regarding risk factors for complications and preventive mechanisms, such as increased education, is indicated.

AbstractBackgroundGastrostomy tubes placed radiologically, endoscopically or surgically facilitate long‐term home enteral nutrition (HEN). Patient‐specific clinical factors may affect placement techniques, confounding direct comparisons between radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) outcomes. This study sought to evaluate the differences in clinical outcomes in patients undergoing gastrostomy tube placement by interventional radiologists or gastroenterologists.MethodsA single‐center prospective trial randomizing patients initiating HEN to RIG or PEG was conducted between March 2018 and June 2021. Patients were followed until the time of gastrostomy removal or until 9 months after tube placement. Tracked complications included peritonitis, abscess, bleeding, bowel perforation, and tube occlusion, malposition, or damage. Periprocedural pain rating and quality of life (QoL) surveys were collected.ResultsForty‐two patients were randomized to RIG or PEG. Twenty patients underwent RIG (mean age, 63.0 ± 11.7 years; 85% male; 95% with head and neck cancer) and 22 patients underwent PEG (mean age, 66.3 ± 10.9 years; 81.8% male; 90.9% with head and neck cancer). RIG and PEG groups had 4.18 ± 5.49 and 2.80 ± 5.82 complications per 1000 HEN days, respectively (P = 0.357). The most frequent complications were tube malposition and abscess formation for the RIG and PEG groups, respectively. No major complications occurred in either group. There was no difference in the average of pain ratings in all pain inventory components across both groups. Both groups reported improvement in overall QoL after gastrostomy tube placement (P = 0.532).ConclusionRIG is noninferior to PEG regarding complication rates, pain, and QoL when compared in a prospective randomized fashion.