UCLA

Background

Surgical feeding ostomies (eg, gastrostomy) have become required by many nursing facilities for all patients receiving enteral nutrition, whether for short- or long-term use. These policies lack supportive evidence. Comparisons of adverse event rates between surgical and natural orifice tubes are few and lacking in the inpatient setting. Additionally, we hypothesize that adverse events related to feeding tubes are underreported. We sought to quantify adverse events to test the relative safety of surgical feeding ostomies and natural orifice (eg. nasogastric or orogastric) feeding tubes in hospitalized patients.

Methods

This was a prospective observational cohort study of enterally fed inpatients using semiweekly focused physical examination, scripted survey, and chart review.

Results

All tube-fed patients admitted to a large, urban, academic hospital received semiweekly bedside evaluation and chart review over a 9-week period (n = 226 unique patients, mean 6.25 visits each, total 1118 observations). Demographics were comparable between 148 subjects with natural orifice and 113 subjects with surgical feeding tubes. A higher incidence of adverse events was observed with surgical tubes (3.34 vs 1.25 events per 100 subject days, P < .001). Only 50% of all adverse events were documented in the medical record. More patients with surgical tubes were discharged to skilled nursing facilities (58% vs 24%).

Conclusions

Surgical feeding tubes are associated with significantly higher in-hospital adverse event rates when compared with natural orifice (nasal or oral) feeding tubes. Policies requiring surgical feeding ostomies should be reevaluated.