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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Nutrition in clinical practice 2021-12, Vol.36 (6), p.1290-1295
Main Authors: Gillis, Holly Catherine, Lin, Ada, Jackson, Kenneth, Stewart, Claire
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 &amp; 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 &lt; .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 &lt; .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 &lt; .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