Epp, Lisa

AbstractBackgroundMany healthcare facilities and providers prohibit blenderized tube feeding (BTF) for patients who request it due to concerns of high microbial load. The current project compared microbial loads of a standard ready‐to‐feed polymeric commercial formula (CF), a BTF made using baby food (BTF‐BF), and a BTF prepared from blending whole food (BTF‐WF), following food safety standards expected of U.S. hospitals.MethodsThree tube‐feeding formulas (CF, BTF‐BF, BTF‐WF) were prepared in a U.S. hospital and delivered in vitro to an unoccupied patient room. Samples were collected at zero hour, 2 hours, and 4 hours and compared for growth of aerobic microorganisms, Staphylococus aureus, coliforms, and Escherichia coli. The experiment was conducted in triplicate, 1 week apart.ResultsNo S. aureus or coliform/E. coli were detected at any time point following preparation, and total bacterial count was well below acceptable limits. All 3 feeding formulas at zero hour, 2 hours, and 4 hours for each of the 3 sampling dates were acceptable for human consumption.ConclusionJudicious BTF recipe selection and adherence to safe food handling provide a safe feeding substrate equivalent to CF in the hospital setting. Due to increased use and interest in BTF by patients and their caregivers, healthcare facilities may need to reexamine their policies prohibiting BTF use.

AbstractBackgroundDiabetes mellitus (DM) is estimated to affect 9% of Americans and is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and increased healthcare costs.MethodsA retrospective review of a home enteral nutrition (HEN) database of patients seen between March 1, 2004, and April 31, 2014, at our institution was conducted to identify HEN patients who had a diagnosis of DM or were diagnosed within the acute period (4 months) of starting HEN therapy.Results174 (3.7%) of 4682 patients in the HEN program had DM. HEN was provided through a gastrostomy tube in 82 patients and through a jejunostomy tube in 92 patients. At 3 months, data were available for 42 gastrostomy patients; 44% had a change in DM management, with 60% undergoing a change to insulin. Similarly, 34 patients with jejunostomy had data available, with 41% undergoing change in medication and 93% being changed to insulin therapy. For patients with available glycated hemogloblin values, at 3 months the gastrostomy patients noted a decrease of 0.5% (7.3% ± 1.1% to 6.8% ± 0.7%, not significant) and the jejunostomy patients noted a decrease of 0.4% (6.9% ± 0.9% to 6.5% ± 1.1%, P = .06). Conclusions: Overall, our results suggest that closer follow‐up and laboratory assessment are necessary for management of HEN patients with DM. In those with data available, glycemic control can be maintained in patients receiving HEN with appropriate adjustment of DM management and focus on ensuring that patients are not overfed.

AbstractBackground: Since initial report in 1972, misconnections continue to be an issue, especially in hospitalized patients with multiple access devices. A new small‐bore connector standard (ENFit) has been proposed in order to minimize misconnections. Methods: Commercially available finalized ENFit tubes of a variety of sizes (14 French [Fr] size, 18Fr, 20Fr, 24Fr, and low‐profile) were obtained for current testing. Variety of commercially available formulas including blenderized tube feeding (BTF) products (Jevity 1 Cal, Abbott Nutrition, Abbott Park, IL; Nourish, Functional Formularies, Centerville, OH; Real Food Blends, Chesterton, IN) were tested. Results: Data from individual measurements were aggregated for ENFit and legacy tubes and revealed higher syringe compression force in legacy tubes compared with ENFit tubes for 20Fr size with Jevity formula. Our institution's BTF formula revealed that legacy tubes had lower syringe compression force than ENFit tubes for 14Fr tube size. Remaining measurements revealed no significant difference. Model 1 of regression analysis revealed that only formula and tube size were significant with R2 of 0.63. Model 2 evaluating the impact of tube size, blender, time of blending, and legacy vs ENFit revealed that tube size, blender used, and blending time were significant with legacy vs ENFit being nonsignificant (R2 of 0.72). Conclusions: Overall, only a small number of tube sizes (14Fr and 20Fr) with selected formulas revealed a significant difference between ENFit and Legacy tubes, with remaining studies finding no significant difference. Regression analysis revealed that variables such as formula, size of tube, blender used, and time of blending may have more impact on compression force.