Is nasojejunal feeding as effective as we think? An evaluation of nasojejunal feeding in the Intensive Care Unit

ABSTRACT

Early enteral feeding is important in maintaining the integrity of the gastrointestinal tract mucosal barrier and associated with less bacterial translocation and decreased stimulation of the systemic inflammatory response and subsequent improved outcomes in intensive care (ICU) patients. Enteral feeding by nasogastric (NG) tubes is the preferred route of nutritional support for most ICU patients. However, ICU patients with delayed gastric emptying and poor intestinal motility may not tolerate gastric feeding and may therefore benefit from post-pyloric feeding via nasojejunal (NJ) tubes1. We reviewed the effectiveness of 35 NJ tube placement in 24 patients on ICU between January and March 2021. The MF ratio was 41, median age 69 years (30–80 years) and 54% of patients were non-White British. 10 patients (42%) had diabetes and 54% had COVID-19 as part of their admitting diagnoses. The median BMI was 25 (range 20 – 32.3) and none of the patients were identified as high risk for refeeding syndrome at the time of NJ tube insertion. Nutritional information was unavailable on 5 patients. Of the remaining 19 patients, 26% of patients (n=5) were commenced on parenteral nutrition (PN) within 48 hours of NJ insertion. Only 1 patient was able to meet their nutritional requirements enterally via NJ tube at 5 days;a further 2 patients had their nutritional requirements met with supplemental PN. In 8 of 22 referrals the indication for NJ tube insertion was because an NG tube could not be passed. The evaluation revealed discrepancies in adherence to protocols for high gastric residual volumes and prokinetic use. Documentation surrounding decision making, requesting and inserting an NJ tube was poor and probably reflects the complexity of the patients, involvement of multiple clinical teams, and various documentation modalities (i.e., verbal, written and different electronic systems). There was clinical dispute regarding the indication for NJ tube insertion in 23% of cases (documented in 3 of 13 referrals for NJ tube insertion). Where documentation was available 43% of patients (n=10) had an NJ tube placed on the day of request;the median time from request to insertion was 1 day (range 0-10). 5 patients had more than one NJ tube inserted (median 3;range 2–5). There was variation in experience and expertise of the endoscopists placing the NJ tubes. NJ tube feeding is considered to be less expensive and have less complications than PN2. However, our evaluation has revealed a range of issues relating to both the insertion and use of NJ tubes in an ICU setting. The true resource ‘cost’ of NJ tube insertion is probably underestimated in the literature and the complications of PN probably overestimated in the context of modern ICU and nutrition support team clinical practices. We suspect that our clinical experience is not unique and that more research is needed in this area. We are using this work to educate clinical teams, standardise documentation, provide better support and supervision for endoscopists, and raise awareness of the benefit and need for supplemental PN where nutritional requirements are not consistently reached enterally. 1 Schröder S, Hülst S V, Claussen M et al. Postpyloric feeding tubes for surgical intensive care patients. Anaesthetist 2011;60 (3) 214-20. 2 Lochs H, Dejong C, Hammarqvist F et al. ESPEN Guidelines on enteral nutrition Gastroenterology. Clin Nutr 2006;25(20 260-74.