Causes of nasoenteral tube obstruction in tertiary hospital patients.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Obstruction of the nasoenteral tube is one of the complications of enteral nutrition therapy, and its causes and frequency of occurrence are not well understood. To evaluate the causes of enteral nutrition feeding tube obstruction. To study the time elapsed between the beginning of the nutrition therapy and the obstruction of the tube. SUBJECTS/METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 1170 patients aged 18 years or older who were hospitalized at Sírio-Libanês Hospital between January 2015 and October 2017, and who were undergoing enteral nutrition therapy delivered using an infusion pump through a nasogastric or nasoenteral tube. The study population included 683 (58%) men and 487 (42%) women. The median age was 79 years. Of these, 1084 patients received enteral nutrition and medication through the feeding tube, and 86 received medication alone. Variables investigated as causes of feeding tube obstruction were the administration of medication through the tube, type of diet, and use of symbiotics. RESULTS: Obstruction rates were 4% for up to 40 days of observation and 8% for the total observation time. The time for obstruction of 10% of the tubes in patients receiving rivaroxaban, linagliptin, metformin, and nystatin was 16, 19, 20, and 28 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The main cause of nasoenteral tube obstruction (odds ratio) was the combination of metformin (2.0), nystatin (3.1), linagliptin (4.3), rivaroxaban (2.4), and a high-protein diet (1.9). Overall, proper tube care and strict compliance with tubal drug delivery guidelines can result in low tube obstruction rates.

Association between implementation of an intensivist-led medical emergency team and mortality.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of implementation of a dedicated intensivist-led medical emergency team (IL-MET) on mortality in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: All adult ward admissions to the ICU between July 2002 and December 2009 were reviewed (n=1920) after excluding readmissions and admissions for <24 h. IL-MET hours were defined as 8:00-15:59 (Monday to Friday). The following periods were analysed: period 1: 1 July 2002-31 August 2004 (control); period 2: 1 September 2004-11 February 2007 (partial MET without dedicated intensivist); and period 3: 12 February 2007-31 December 2009 (hospital-wide IL-MET). RESULTS: During all three periods, there were no significant differences in length of stay or mortality (IL-MET vs non-IL-MET hours, p>0.1 for all). On multivariate analysis, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score and age were independently associated with mortality in all three periods (p<0.05 for all). During period 3, there was a non-significant trend towards decreased mortality if admitted during IL-MET hours (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.03, p=0.08). During period 3, there was a non-significant trend towards decreased mortality if admitted during IL-MET hours (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.03, p=0.08). However, this result likely reflects the observed increase in mortality during non-IL MET hours rather than improved mortality during IL-MET hours. CONCLUSION In a single centre experience, implementation of an IL-MET did not reduce the rate of in-hospital death or lengths of stay.