Loading…
Postpyloric feeding tube placement at the bedside: Complication rate and impact on length of stay
Background Postpyloric feeding tube (PPFT) placement is essential for the ongoing nutrition care of critically ill children requiring noninvasive and invasive ventilation. PPFTs are placed by a variety of providers, including advanced practice nurses (APNs), surgeons, gastroenterologists, and radiol...
Saved in:
Published in: | Nutrition in clinical practice 2021-12, Vol.36 (6), p.1290-1295 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3202-a06163bdf558e697c1fab0f1c6ad7f7411412e251f9ba1a9b11bb459149566db3 |
container_end_page | 1295 |
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 1290 |
container_title | Nutrition in clinical practice |
container_volume | 36 |
creator | Gillis, Holly Catherine Lin, Ada Jackson, Kenneth Stewart, Claire |
description | Background
Postpyloric feeding tube (PPFT) placement is essential for the ongoing nutrition care of critically ill children requiring noninvasive and invasive ventilation. PPFTs are placed by a variety of providers, including advanced practice nurses (APNs), surgeons, gastroenterologists, and radiologists. Complication rates, time to enteral nutrition (EN) following placement, and association with length of stay (LOS) have not been well documented.
Methods
A query of the electronic medical record identified patients in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) in whom PPFTs were placed. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patient demographics; PPFT placement provider, indication, and duration; PICU LOS; hospital LOS; and patient pediatric risk of mortality (PRISM) scores.
Results
A total of 452 PPFTs were placed in 346 patients , with 318 placed by APNs. There was only one complication in 452 placed PPFTs. PRISM scores between patient groups for APN‐placed PPFTs and non‐APN–placed PPFTs were not significantly different. Mean time from hospital admission to PPFT placement was 1.5 days (APN) to 2.0 days (non‐APN) (P < .02). Spearman correlation coefficients demonstrated shorter hospital and PICU LOS were associated with shorter duration to insertion.
Conclusion
Overall complication rates of PPFT insertion is very low and do not significantly differ between provider type , even in patients with higher PRISM scores. Additionally, early time to insertion of PPFT is associated with decreased hospital and PICU LOS. Further research is needed to determine if the earlier time to insertion of PPFTs is associated with the achievement of goal feeds. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ncp.10732 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2550268702</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2550268702</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3202-a06163bdf558e697c1fab0f1c6ad7f7411412e251f9ba1a9b11bb459149566db3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kDtPwzAURi0EoqUw8AeQRxhCfR07DzZU8ZIq6ABzZDvXrVFexI5Q_z2BFjam--nq6AyHkHNg18AYnzemG0ca8wMyhVxAxIXkh2TKskxEMo6TCTnx_p0xyOI0OyaTWIyESPmUqFXrQ7et2t4ZahFL16xpGDTSrlIGa2wCVYGGDVKNpXcl3tBFW3eVMyq4tqG9CkhVU1JXd8oEOr4qbNZhQ1tLfVDbU3JkVeXxbH9n5O3-7nXxGC1fHp4Wt8vIxJzxSLEEkliXVsoMkzw1YJVmFkyiytSmAkAARy7B5lqByjWA1kLmIHKZJKWOZ-Ry5-369mNAH4raeYNVpRpsB19wKRlPspTxEb3aoaZvve_RFl3vatVvC2DFd9FiLFr8FB3Zi7120DWWf-RvwhGY74BPV-H2f1PxvFjtlF_eNn_A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2550268702</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Postpyloric feeding tube placement at the bedside: Complication rate and impact on length of stay</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection</source><creator>Gillis, Holly Catherine ; Lin, Ada ; Jackson, Kenneth ; Stewart, Claire</creator><creatorcontrib>Gillis, Holly Catherine ; Lin, Ada ; Jackson, Kenneth ; Stewart, Claire</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Postpyloric feeding tube (PPFT) placement is essential for the ongoing nutrition care of critically ill children requiring noninvasive and invasive ventilation. PPFTs are placed by a variety of providers, including advanced practice nurses (APNs), surgeons, gastroenterologists, and radiologists. Complication rates, time to enteral nutrition (EN) following placement, and association with length of stay (LOS) have not been well documented.
Methods
A query of the electronic medical record identified patients in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) in whom PPFTs were placed. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patient demographics; PPFT placement provider, indication, and duration; PICU LOS; hospital LOS; and patient pediatric risk of mortality (PRISM) scores.
Results
A total of 452 PPFTs were placed in 346 patients , with 318 placed by APNs. There was only one complication in 452 placed PPFTs. PRISM scores between patient groups for APN‐placed PPFTs and non‐APN–placed PPFTs were not significantly different. Mean time from hospital admission to PPFT placement was 1.5 days (APN) to 2.0 days (non‐APN) (P < .02). Spearman correlation coefficients demonstrated shorter hospital and PICU LOS were associated with shorter duration to insertion.
Conclusion
Overall complication rates of PPFT insertion is very low and do not significantly differ between provider type , even in patients with higher PRISM scores. Additionally, early time to insertion of PPFT is associated with decreased hospital and PICU LOS. Further research is needed to determine if the earlier time to insertion of PPFTs is associated with the achievement of goal feeds.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0884-5336</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1941-2452</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ncp.10732</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34245472</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Child ; children ; complications ; critical illness ; Critical Illness - therapy ; enteral nutrition ; Enteral Nutrition - adverse effects ; feeding tube placement ; Humans ; Intubation, Gastrointestinal - adverse effects ; Length of Stay ; pediatrics ; Retrospective Studies</subject><ispartof>Nutrition in clinical practice, 2021-12, Vol.36 (6), p.1290-1295</ispartof><rights>2021 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition</rights><rights>2021 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3202-a06163bdf558e697c1fab0f1c6ad7f7411412e251f9ba1a9b11bb459149566db3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9507-3282 ; 0000-0001-6700-1436 ; 0000-0002-3877-1738</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34245472$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gillis, Holly Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Ada</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stewart, Claire</creatorcontrib><title>Postpyloric feeding tube placement at the bedside: Complication rate and impact on length of stay</title><title>Nutrition in clinical practice</title><addtitle>Nutr Clin Pract</addtitle><description>Background
Postpyloric feeding tube (PPFT) placement is essential for the ongoing nutrition care of critically ill children requiring noninvasive and invasive ventilation. PPFTs are placed by a variety of providers, including advanced practice nurses (APNs), surgeons, gastroenterologists, and radiologists. Complication rates, time to enteral nutrition (EN) following placement, and association with length of stay (LOS) have not been well documented.
Methods
A query of the electronic medical record identified patients in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) in whom PPFTs were placed. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patient demographics; PPFT placement provider, indication, and duration; PICU LOS; hospital LOS; and patient pediatric risk of mortality (PRISM) scores.
Results
A total of 452 PPFTs were placed in 346 patients , with 318 placed by APNs. There was only one complication in 452 placed PPFTs. PRISM scores between patient groups for APN‐placed PPFTs and non‐APN–placed PPFTs were not significantly different. Mean time from hospital admission to PPFT placement was 1.5 days (APN) to 2.0 days (non‐APN) (P < .02). Spearman correlation coefficients demonstrated shorter hospital and PICU LOS were associated with shorter duration to insertion.
Conclusion
Overall complication rates of PPFT insertion is very low and do not significantly differ between provider type , even in patients with higher PRISM scores. Additionally, early time to insertion of PPFT is associated with decreased hospital and PICU LOS. Further research is needed to determine if the earlier time to insertion of PPFTs is associated with the achievement of goal feeds.</description><subject>Child</subject><subject>children</subject><subject>complications</subject><subject>critical illness</subject><subject>Critical Illness - therapy</subject><subject>enteral nutrition</subject><subject>Enteral Nutrition - adverse effects</subject><subject>feeding tube placement</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intubation, Gastrointestinal - adverse effects</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>pediatrics</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><issn>0884-5336</issn><issn>1941-2452</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kDtPwzAURi0EoqUw8AeQRxhCfR07DzZU8ZIq6ABzZDvXrVFexI5Q_z2BFjam--nq6AyHkHNg18AYnzemG0ca8wMyhVxAxIXkh2TKskxEMo6TCTnx_p0xyOI0OyaTWIyESPmUqFXrQ7et2t4ZahFL16xpGDTSrlIGa2wCVYGGDVKNpXcl3tBFW3eVMyq4tqG9CkhVU1JXd8oEOr4qbNZhQ1tLfVDbU3JkVeXxbH9n5O3-7nXxGC1fHp4Wt8vIxJzxSLEEkliXVsoMkzw1YJVmFkyiytSmAkAARy7B5lqByjWA1kLmIHKZJKWOZ-Ry5-369mNAH4raeYNVpRpsB19wKRlPspTxEb3aoaZvve_RFl3vatVvC2DFd9FiLFr8FB3Zi7120DWWf-RvwhGY74BPV-H2f1PxvFjtlF_eNn_A</recordid><startdate>202112</startdate><enddate>202112</enddate><creator>Gillis, Holly Catherine</creator><creator>Lin, Ada</creator><creator>Jackson, Kenneth</creator><creator>Stewart, Claire</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9507-3282</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6700-1436</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3877-1738</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202112</creationdate><title>Postpyloric feeding tube placement at the bedside: Complication rate and impact on length of stay</title><author>Gillis, Holly Catherine ; Lin, Ada ; Jackson, Kenneth ; Stewart, Claire</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3202-a06163bdf558e697c1fab0f1c6ad7f7411412e251f9ba1a9b11bb459149566db3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Child</topic><topic>children</topic><topic>complications</topic><topic>critical illness</topic><topic>Critical Illness - therapy</topic><topic>enteral nutrition</topic><topic>Enteral Nutrition - adverse effects</topic><topic>feeding tube placement</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intubation, Gastrointestinal - adverse effects</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>pediatrics</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gillis, Holly Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Ada</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stewart, Claire</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Nutrition in clinical practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gillis, Holly Catherine</au><au>Lin, Ada</au><au>Jackson, Kenneth</au><au>Stewart, Claire</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Postpyloric feeding tube placement at the bedside: Complication rate and impact on length of stay</atitle><jtitle>Nutrition in clinical practice</jtitle><addtitle>Nutr Clin Pract</addtitle><date>2021-12</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1290</spage><epage>1295</epage><pages>1290-1295</pages><issn>0884-5336</issn><eissn>1941-2452</eissn><abstract>Background
Postpyloric feeding tube (PPFT) placement is essential for the ongoing nutrition care of critically ill children requiring noninvasive and invasive ventilation. PPFTs are placed by a variety of providers, including advanced practice nurses (APNs), surgeons, gastroenterologists, and radiologists. Complication rates, time to enteral nutrition (EN) following placement, and association with length of stay (LOS) have not been well documented.
Methods
A query of the electronic medical record identified patients in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) in whom PPFTs were placed. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patient demographics; PPFT placement provider, indication, and duration; PICU LOS; hospital LOS; and patient pediatric risk of mortality (PRISM) scores.
Results
A total of 452 PPFTs were placed in 346 patients , with 318 placed by APNs. There was only one complication in 452 placed PPFTs. PRISM scores between patient groups for APN‐placed PPFTs and non‐APN–placed PPFTs were not significantly different. Mean time from hospital admission to PPFT placement was 1.5 days (APN) to 2.0 days (non‐APN) (P < .02). Spearman correlation coefficients demonstrated shorter hospital and PICU LOS were associated with shorter duration to insertion.
Conclusion
Overall complication rates of PPFT insertion is very low and do not significantly differ between provider type , even in patients with higher PRISM scores. Additionally, early time to insertion of PPFT is associated with decreased hospital and PICU LOS. Further research is needed to determine if the earlier time to insertion of PPFTs is associated with the achievement of goal feeds.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>34245472</pmid><doi>10.1002/ncp.10732</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9507-3282</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6700-1436</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3877-1738</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0884-5336 |
ispartof | Nutrition in clinical practice, 2021-12, Vol.36 (6), p.1290-1295 |
issn | 0884-5336 1941-2452 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2550268702 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection |
subjects | Child children complications critical illness Critical Illness - therapy enteral nutrition Enteral Nutrition - adverse effects feeding tube placement Humans Intubation, Gastrointestinal - adverse effects Length of Stay pediatrics Retrospective Studies |
title | Postpyloric feeding tube placement at the bedside: Complication rate and impact on length of stay |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T07%3A07%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Postpyloric%20feeding%20tube%20placement%20at%20the%20bedside:%20Complication%20rate%20and%20impact%20on%20length%20of%20stay&rft.jtitle=Nutrition%20in%20clinical%20practice&rft.au=Gillis,%20Holly%20Catherine&rft.date=2021-12&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1290&rft.epage=1295&rft.pages=1290-1295&rft.issn=0884-5336&rft.eissn=1941-2452&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ncp.10732&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2550268702%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3202-a06163bdf558e697c1fab0f1c6ad7f7411412e251f9ba1a9b11bb459149566db3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2550268702&rft_id=info:pmid/34245472&rfr_iscdi=true |