Food, Mechanic and Septic Complications in Patients Enterally Nutritioned in Home Conditions
Languages of publication
Home enteral nutrition (HEN for short) allows practically normal living for patients who cannot be fed orally but at the same time do not have to stay in hospitals, which is often found to decrease their mental condition, increase of probability of complications and costs of medical treatment.The aim of the study was to analyze the frequency of nutritional, mechanical and septic complications in patients fed enterally in home conditions.Material and methods. The study performed using retrospective analysis of study results and reports from control visits for patients in the period between 2012-2013. 147 patients fed enterally using HEN method participated in the study, including 70 men and 77 women aged 19 to 99 years (average 65 years). The following type of gastrointestinal tract access was used for patients: PEG in 113 (76.5%), feeding jejunostomy - 21 (1.4%), PEG-PEJ - 5 (3.5%), in case of the remaining 8 patients the nasogastric gavage (5.5%) was used.Results. The most common complication were infections (of gastric tract, skin soft tissue in the region of nutritional fistula entry, in three cases the aspiration pneumonia was diagnosed) found in 55 (49.1%) of cases. Mechanical complications were found out in 29 (25.9% of all complications), nutritional complications were present 28 times, which constituted 25% of all complications.Conclusions. In the studied group of patients with an implemented HEN procedure, septic complications were the most common problem. The longest average nutrition time with PEG-PEJ probably results from the effective protection of the patient against aspiration pneumonia.
28 - 8 - 2014
3 - 2 - 2015
- 1. Pertkiewicz M: Żywienie dojelitowe w warunkach domowych. Postępy Żywienia Klin 2006; 1: 5-14.
- 2. Elia M, Stratton RJ, Holden C et al.: Home artificial nutrition support: the value of the British Artificial Nutrition Survey. clin Nutr 2001; 20(Suppl. 1): 61-66.[Crossref]
- 3. Moreno JM, Shaffer J, Staun M et al.: Survey of legislation and funding of home artificial nutrition in different European countries. Clin Nutr 2001; 20(2): 117-23.[Crossref]
- 4. Korta T, Kłęk s, łyszkowska M: Podstawy żywienia klinicznego Sobotka L. (red.wyd.pol. Krakowskie Wydawnictwo Scientifica Sp. z o.o. Kraków 2013; edycja czwarta: 364-370).
- 5. De Luis DA, Izaola O, Cuellar LA et al.: Experience over 12 years with home enteral nutrition in a healthcare area of Spain. J Human nutrition and dietetics 2013 July; Vol. 26, (Issue Supplement, s 1): 1-187.
- 6. Älivizatos V, Gavala V, Alexopoulos P et al.: Feeding Tube-related Complications and Problems in Patients Receiving Long-term Home Enteral Nutrition, Indian J Palliat Care. 2012; 18(1): 31-33.[Crossref]
- 7. Dí Baise JK, Scolapio JS: Home parenteral and enteral nutrition. gastroenterolog clin n am 2007; 36: 123-44.
- 8. Paccagnella A, Baruffi C, Pizzolato D et al.: Home enteral nutrition in adults: A five-year (2001-2005) epidemiological analysis. Clinical Nutrition 2008; 27: 378-85.[WoS]
- 9. ESPEN: Hebuterne X, Bozzetti F, Moreno Villares JM et al.: Home enteral nutrition in adults: a European multicentre survey. clinical Nutrition 2003; 22(3): 261-66.
- 10. Jones B, Micklewright A, Hirst A et al.: Annual BANS Report 2011, Artificial Nutrition Support in the UK 2000-2010. 2008; Adres: http://www.bapen. org.uk/pdfs/bans_reports/bans_report_11.pdf (1.07.2014r.)
- 11. Cabrit R, Lambert T, Simard M et al.: Home enteral nutrition: An experience of 3 millions days. Nutrition Clinique et Métabolisme 2013; 27(4): 178-84.
- 12. Lestrange, F: An audit of adult patients on home enteral tube feeding in a region of Northern Ireland. J Human Nutrition and Dietetics 1997; 10(5): 277-87.
- 13. Ribeiro Al, Zaban S, Carvalho MR, Novaes G: Impact of the Home Enteral Nutrition regulation issue in public hospitalsin Distrito Federal, Brazil” e-SPEN, the European e-J clinical Nutrition and Metabolism 2009; 4: 193-98.
Publication order reference