Schneckloth, Jill

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.

AbstractEnteral nutrition (EN) is a widely used therapeutic tool to provide nutrition support for patients with various clinical conditions, including different types of cancer. Head and neck cancers, often complicated by dysphagia, are among leading indications for enteral feeding. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (PEJ) tubes are typically used to deliver EN. This article presents a case report of a young male with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. Unfortunately, he developed metastasis of his cancer at the right lateral side of the PEG placement site, requiring surgical resection of seeded growth at the PEG site. This rare complication can be challenging, as it requires a high index of suspicion to diagnose and can potentially limit nutrition support options. A number of theories have been proposed to explain seeding during PEG/PEJ placement, including direct repositioning of malignant cells during instrumentation. A specific placement technique has not been shown to be superior, as seeding was reported with all placement techniques. However, given the lack of statistically powerful studies to describe this entity, there are still gaps we need to explore to better understand seeding of feeding tubes and best practices around diagnosis and early treatment. EN continues to be an important part of caring for patients with cancer during active or palliative treatments. Understanding potential risks in the setting of cancer metastasis is beneficial to the patients and multidisciplinary teams involved. Early recognition of possible seeding of feeding tube sites is necessary to ensure subsequent timely surgical intervention.

AbstractBackgroundEnteral nutrition (EN) is a safe and cost‐effective intervention with significant morbidity and mortality benefit that can also be associated with complications. Peristomal infections can occur in 5%–30% of cases after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. Despite this common occurrence, widespread use of objective diagnostic criteria is not prevalent, possibly leading to overuse of antibiotics.MethodsAll patients who were reporting symptoms consistent with peristomal infection were evaluated. Criteria based on erythema, induration, and exudates were applied with cumulative score ≥8 indicating peristomal infection. All patients were followed, with additional factors being collected if available.ResultsForty‐three patients noted complaints consistent with peristomal infection. In patients with a score <8 (n = 16), only 2 required antibiotics (12.5%) and 1 patient was hospitalized (6.3%). In patients with a score ≥8 (n = 27), 16 had a score of 8 or 9; all patients responded to antibiotics (100%), and 1 was hospitalized (6.3%). In patients with a score ≥10, all (100%) were treated with antibiotics. Five of 11 (45%) patients were hospitalized, with the most common diagnosis being sepsis. Of the baseline variables analyzed, higher body mass index correlated with score ≥10 (26.36 ± 2.94 vs 22.91 ± 4.35 in score <9, P = .0128).ConclusionsObjective criteria were effective in risk stratifying patients who presented with reports of peristomal infection. Patients with a score <8 tended to be at low risk, scores of 8–9 were of moderate risk, and patients with a score ≥10 were at high risk and required very close monitoring or hospitalization.