Tolerance of enteral nutrition following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is a barrier to discharge. This study investigated the impact of an expedited feeding protocol following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy on postprocedure length of stay (LOS).

We performed a before-and-after cohort study on hospitalized adults in whom percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy was placed by surgeons following the implementation of a standardized feeding protocol in which enteral feeds were resumed at the preoperative rate 6 h later.

Enteral feeding resumed within 6 h postoperatively in 93% of patients after protocol initiation. The mean ± SD time to the goal enteral rate after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy was significantly shorter following protocol implementation (15 ± 10 vs 50 ± 26 h, P ≤ 0.0001). Compared with the preprotocol cohort, there was no change in postoperative aspiration at 1 week (6% vs 4%, P = 0.531) or rates of tube dislodgement (10% vs 9%, P = 0.89), return to the operating room (10% vs 6%, P = 0.36), and surgical-site infection (9% vs 8%, P = 0.92) at 1 month in the protocol implementation cohort. On multivariable regression, an expedited feeding protocol generated a significantly shorter postprocedure LOS for patients remaining in the hospital for ≤1 week (β = -2.14, 95% CI, -2.98 to -1.30; P < 0.001).

An expedited feeding protocol following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement had a high degree of provider uptake without any significant change in safety outcomes. Beginning enteral nutrition within 6 h postoperatively at the preoperative rate reduced LOS by >2 days, suggesting that these protocols can address common delays to discharge.

This article from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying summary and recommendations article for strategies to manage endoscopically placed gastrostomy tubes. This article was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and specifically addresses the utility of PEG versus interventional radiology-guided gastrostomy (IR-G), the need for withholding antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications, appropriate timing to initiate tube feedings, and appropriate selection of the gastrostomy technique in patients with malignant dysphagia. In patients needing enteral access, the ASGE suggests PEG as the preferred technique for initial gastrostomy over IR-G. The ASGE recommends that tube feeding can be safely started within 4 hours of the gastrostomy without the need for an intentional delay. The ASGE suggests that a PEG can be performed without the need to withhold antiplatelet medications. In patients on anticoagulants who need to undergo PEG placement, the ASGE suggests that the periprocedural management of anticoagulants should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion with the patient regarding the risk of bleeding versus cardiovascular adverse events. In patients with malignant dysphagia, either transoral "Pull" PEG or transcutaneous "Direct" PEG can be performed for initial enteral access.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage endoscopically placed gastrostomy tubes. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the utility of PEG versus interventional radiology-guided gastrostomy (IR-G), need for withholding antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications before PEG tube placement, appropriate timing to initiate tube feeding after PEG, and selection of the appropriate technique of gastrostomy in patients with malignant dysphagia. In patients needing enteral access, the ASGE suggests PEG as the preferred technique for initial gastrotomy over IR-G. The ASGE recommends that tube feeding can be safely started within 4 hours of gastrostomy. The ASGE suggests that PEG can be performed without withholding antiplatelet medications. The ASGE suggests that the periprocedural management of anticoagulants should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion regarding the risk of bleeding versus cardiovascular events. In patients with malignant dysphagia, either transoral "pull" PEG or direct PEG can be performed for initial enteral access.

In clinical practice, tube feedings have been delayed after the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement. Previous studies, including a meta-analysis in 2008, have shown that it is safe to start tube feeding ≤ 4 h of PEG tube placement. However, it is still a common practice to delay the initiation of tube feeding up to 24 h after PEG tube placement. We have performed an updated analysis of studies comparing early versus delayed tube feedings following PEG placement.

Major databases like PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched in June 2022 for randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies reporting on comparative outcomes with early (< or = 4 h) versus delayed (> 4 h) feeding after PEG tube placement in adult patients. The primary outcomes in our study include complication rates and mortality rates within 72 h of the procedure. The outcomes were reported as pooled odds ratio (95% confidence interval (CI) (Moole et al. in Indian J Gastroenterol. 35:323-330, 2016), p value, I2 values).

A total of 212 individuals in the early feeding group and 215 individuals in the late feeding group were analyzed from six studies. The pooled odds ratio of total complication events between early and late feed groups was 0.86 (CI 0.51-1.45, p = 0.58). The pooled odds ratio of fever, vomiting, and local infection was 0.94 (CI 0.186-4.74, p = 0.94), 1.0 (CI 0.38-2.65, p = 0.9), and 1.25 (0.36-4.3, p = 0.72), respectively, between early and late feeding post-PEG tube placement. In conclusion, this meta-analysis confirms that early feeding ≤ 4 h after PEG placement does not increase the odds of poor outcomes or mortality, and it is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective alternative to delayed feeding. Furthermore, early feeding may decrease hospital stays and healthcare costs.

Initiation of feeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement has been debated. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed on early feeding compared with delayed feeding after PEG placement with varying results. Therefore, a meta-analysis was conducted examining early vs delayed feeding after placement of a PEG.

A comprehensive search of databases was conducted in January 2024. Peer-reviewed published RCTs comparing early feeding (≤4 h) with delayed feeding (>4 h) were identified and included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was completed using pooled estimates of overall complications, individual complications, mortality ≤72 h, and number of day 1 significant gastric residual volumes.

Six RCTs (n = 467) were included in the analysis. Comparison of early feeding with delayed feeding after PEG showed no statistically significant differences for overall complications (P = 0.18), mortality ≤72 h (P = 0.3), and number of day 1 significant gastric residual volumes (P = 0.05). No differences were also noted for individual complications, including vomiting, wound infection, bleeding, or diarrhea.

Feeding ≤4 h after PEG have no differences in minor and major complications compared with that of delayed feeding. Early feeding ≤4 h is safe and should be recommended in future guidelines.

Children with severe chronic kidney disease receiving maintenance peritoneal dialysis (PD) are often malnourished and may require nutritional supplementation. Recent PD guidelines address laparoscopic and open surgical gastrostomy as safe approaches in children established on PD, while existing evidence on percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is still lacking; as well as the role of perioperative antibiotic and antifungal prophylaxis. Hence, this study aimed to report our experience with PEG placement in patients on PD and compare it with the available literature.

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records from patients on PD, who underwent PEG placement at a tertiary referral centre between 2000 and 2020. Data on perioperative management, complications and outcomes were retrieved. An extensive literature search was performed; studies describing PEG placement and perioperative prophylaxis in patients on PD were used as a comparison. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted.

Seven patients (five males) were included. Perioperative antibiotic and antifungal prophylaxis were standard practice. At a median follow-up of 27 months (10-75), the peritonitis rate was 0.2 patient/years. No statistical significance was found between the peritonitis rate before and after PEG placement (p = 0.2). Patients' demographics and postoperative complications were comparable to the reported studies.

Based on our experience, our technique of PEG insertion with antimicrobial prophylaxis is feasible and associated with an acceptable complication risk in patients on PD. Further multicentric studies about surgical technique in patients on PD will be necessary to verify the feasibility of PEG and standardise the perioperative protocol.

Treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC) can lead to decreased oral intake which often requires gastrostomy tube (g-tube) placement to provide nutritional support. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) consisting of interventional radiology (IR), HNC oncology and surgery, nutrition, and speech language pathology departments implemented an expedited outpatient g-tube placement pathway to reduce hospital stays and associated costs, initiate feeds sooner, and improve communication between care teams. This single center study investigates differences in complications, time to procedure and costs savings with implementing this pathway.

142 patients with HNC who underwent elective image guided g-tube placement by IR from 2015 to 2022 were identified retrospectively. 52 patients underwent the traditional pathway, and 90 patients underwent the expedited pathway. Patient demographics, procedure characteristics, periprocedural costs and 90-day complication rates were collected and compared statistically.

The 90-day complication rate was comparable between groups (traditional=32.7%; expedited=22.2%; p-value=0.17). The expedited pathway decreased the time from consult to procedure by 11.1 days (95% CI 7.6 - 14.6; p < 0.001) and decreased charge per procedure by $2940 (95% CI $989-$4891; p < 0.001).

A MDT for the treatment of patients with HNC successfully provided enteral nutrition support faster, with fewer associated costs, and in a more patient centered approach than previously done at this institution.

Enteral nutrition (EN) therapy can provide vital nutrition support for patients with various medical conditions as long as it is indicated and supported by ethical reasoning. This review seeks to offer a detailed account of the history of EN development, highlighting key milestones and recent advances in the field. Additionally, it covers common complications associated with EN and their management.

After years of research and development, we have reached newer generations of enteral feeding formulations, more options for enteral tubes and connectors, and a better understanding of EN therapy challenges. Given the availability of many different formulas, selecting a feeding formula with the best evidence for specific indications for enteral feeding is recommended. Initiation of enteral feeding with standard polymeric formula remains the standard of care. Transition to small-bore connectors remains suboptimal. Evidence-based practices should be followed to recognize and reduce possible enteral feeding complications early.

Timing to resume feeds after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement continues to vary among US trauma surgeons. The purpose of this study was to assess differences in meeting nutritional therapy goals and adverse outcomes with early versus late enteral feeding after PEG placement.

This retrospective review included 364 trauma and burn patients who underwent PEG placement. Data included patient characteristics, time to initiate feeds, rate feeds were resumed, % feed volume goals on postoperative days 0-7, and complications. Statistical analysis was performed comparing two groups (feeds ≤ 6 h versus > 6 h) and three subgroups (< 4 h, 4-6 h, ≥ 6 h) based on data quartiles. Chi-square/Fisher's exact test, independent-samples t-test, and one-way analysis of variance were used to analyze the data.

Mean time to initiate feeds after PEG was 5.48 ± 4.79 h. Burn patients received early feeds in a larger proportion. A larger proportion of trauma patients received late feeds. The mean % of goal feed volume met on postoperative day 0 was higher in the early feeding group versus the late (P < 0.001). There were no differences in adverse events, even after subgroup analysis of those who received feeds < 4 h after PEG placement.

Patients with early initiation of feeds after PEG placement achieve a higher percentage of goals on day 0 without an increased rate of adverse events. Unfortunately, patients routinely fall short of their target tube feeding goals.

With an aging population, the number of patients with difficulty swallowing due to medical conditions is gradually increasing. In such cases, enteral nutrition is administered through a temporary nasogastric tube. Long-term use of a nasogastric tube leads to various complications and a decreased quality of life. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the percutaneous placement of a tube into the stomach, aided endoscopically, which may be an alternative to a nasogastric tube when enteral nutritional is required for 4 weeks or more. This paper is the first Korean clinical guideline for PEG. It was developed jointly by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research and led by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. These guidelines aimed to provide physicians, including endoscopists, with the indications, use of prophylactic antibiotics, timing of enteric nutrition, tube placement methods, complications, replacement, and tubes removal for PEG based on the currently available clinical evidence.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is the most common enteral access for long-term feeding. The aim of our study is to assess the feasibility and safety of immediate PEG tube use after initial placement.

We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study between August 2006 and August 2016. Prior to August 2011, tube feedings were delayed for ≥4 h after initial PEG placement, compared with immediate use (<1 h) after August 2011. Primary outcomes were complication rates within 30 days of placement. Secondary outcomes were impact of morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and need for repeat PEG placement.

Our study included 1296 patients during the 10-year period, of which 704 underwent delayed use and 592 underwent immediate use (744 inpatient and 552 outpatient). There were no significant differences between the delayed-use and immediate-use PEG with regard to complications (3.4% vs 4.4%; P = 0.76). Subgroup analysis also reflected no significant differences in complications between inpatient and outpatient groups. For inpatients, there were no substantial differences in inpatient mortality (3.9% vs 3.3%; P = 0.70), mortality within 30 days of discharge (13.8% vs 13.1%; P = 0.15), readmissions (38.2% vs 34.3%; P = 0.23), repeat PEG placement (0.7% vs 1.5%; P = 0.46), and length of stay (13.3 vs 13.9 days; P = 0.99).

Patients who received immediate enteral nutrition after PEG tube placement did not have any increased complications, morbidity, or mortality; and it is just as safe when compared with patients who received delayed feeding.

There are many misconceptions surrounding the diagnosing and treatment of malnutrition and around feeding people with enteral nutrition (EN). Often the decisions made by clinicians are made from anecdote or guidelines that may be out of date or supported by low-quality evidence. In this article, we will discuss different aspects of diagnosing malnutrition and delve deeper into the science and evidence behind certain recommendations. Our goal is to better equip the reader with the most current data-supported recommendation, such as indications, contraindications, complications of EN, tube and ostomy complications, types and use of specialized enteral formulas, and home management.

Postoperative feeding practices are not uniform in children undergoing bowel anastomosis surgery. Primary aim of this review was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of early enteral nutrition (EEN) as an isolated component of enhanced recovery in children undergoing bowel anastomosis surgery.

Medical search engines (PubMed, CENTRAL, Google scholar) were accessed from inception to January 2021. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT)s, non-randomized controlled trials, observational studies and retrospective studies comparing EEN, initiated within 48 h vs late enteral nutrition (LEN), initiated after 48 h in children ≤ 18 years undergoing bowel anastomosis surgery were included. Primary outcome measure was the incidence of postoperative complications (anastomotic leak, abdominal distension, surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, vomiting and septic complications). Secondary outcome measures were the time to passage of first feces and the length of hospital stay.

Twelve hundred and eighty-six children from 10 studies were included in this review. No difference was seen between the EEN and LEN groups in the incidence of anastomotic leak (1.69% vs 4.13%; p = 0.06), abdominal distention (13.87% vs 12.31%; p = 0.57), wound dehiscence (3.07% vs 2.69%; p = 0.69) or vomiting (8.11% vs 8.67%; p = 0.98). The incidence of surgical site infections (7.51% vs 11.72%; p = 0.04), septic complications (14.02% vs 26.22%; p = 0.02) as well as pooled overall complications (8.11% vs 11.27%; RR 0.71; 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.89; p = 0.003; I² = 33%) were significantly lower in the EEN group. The time to passage of first feces (MD - 17.23 h; 95% CI -23.13 to -11.34; p < 0.00001; I² = 49%) and the length of hospital stay (MD -2.95 days; 95% CI -3.73 to -2.17; p < 0.00001; I² = 93%) were significantly less in the EEN group.

EEN is safe and effective in children following bowel anastomosis surgery and is associated with a lower overall incidence of complications as compared to LEN. EEN also promotes early bowel recovery and hospital discharge. However, further well designed RCTs are required to validate these findings.

V.

Critically ill patients are at increased risk for malnutrition as they often have underlying acute and chronic illness, stress related catabolism, decreased appetite, trauma and ongoing inflammation. Malnutrition is recognized as a leading cause of adverse outcomes, higher mortality, and increased hospital costs. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes provide a safe and effective route to provide supplemental enteral nutrition to these patients. PEG placement has essentially replaced surgical gastrostomy as the modality of choice for longer term feeding in patients. This is a highly prevalent procedure with 160,000 to 200,000 PEG procedures performed each year in the United States. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of current knowledge and practice standards with regards to placement of PEG tube in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). When a patient is considered for a PEG tube, it is important to evaluate the treatment alternatives and identify the best option for each patient. In this review, we provide the advantages and disadvantages of various feeding modalities and devices. We review the indications and contraindications for PEG tube placement as well as the risks of this procedure. We then describe in detail the per-oral pull, per-oral push, and direct percutaneous techniques for PEG tube placement. Additionally, we review the feasibility of having interventional pulmonologists place PEG tubes in the ICU.

We aimed to assess the association between complication rate and time to feeding in a cohort of patients undergoing radiologically guided placement of gastrostomy tubes.

A retrospective study was conducted of all patients receiving pull-type and push-type gastrostomy tubes placed by interventional radiologists between January 1st, 2017 and December 31st, 2018 at a single institution. Primary outcomes included procedural and tube-related complications per medical chart review with a follow-up interval of 30 days. Exclusion criteria were enteral nutrition delayed more than 48 hours, no feeding information, and tubes placed for venting (n=20). Overall, 303 gastrostomy tubes (pull-type, n=184; push-type, n=119) were included. The most common indications for placement included head and neck carcinoma for push-type tubes (n=76, 63.9%) and cerebral vascular accident for pull-type tubes (n=78, 42.4%).

In a multiple regression analysis, there was no statistically significant association between complications and time to feeding (p = 0.096), age (p = 0.758), gender (p = 0.127), indication for tube placement (p = 0.206), or type of tube placed (p = 0.437). Average time to initiation of enteral nutrition was 12.3 hours for the pull-type and 21.7 hours for the push-type cohort (p < 0.001). Additional multiple regression analyses of pull-type tubes and push-type tubes separately also did not find any significant association between complications and the above factors (p > 0.05).

There was no statistically significant correlation between time to feed and complications, suggesting that there is no clinical difference between early and late feeding following gastrostomy tube placement.

Gastrostomy creation is a common procedure in paediatric surgery. It provides enteral nutrition to patients who cannot achieve adequate nutrition by mouth. Common indications of gastrostomy placement in children include syndromic or neurodevelopmental diseases, severe malformations of the aerodigestive tract, craniofacial abnormalities, and intractable gastroesophageal reflux disease with recurrent aspiration. It is also indicated in patients who suffer from failure to thrive and require extra caloric intake. In contrast to adults, paediatric patients have a weaker ability to complain about problems with their gastrostomy tubes when they occur, in particular when some of these neurological patients are non-communicable. Complications may arise when migration of the catheter goes unnoticed, causing obstruction. Due to the smaller stomach size, thinner gastric wall and narrower gastric outlet in paediatric patients, obstruction from the gastrostomy balloon may result in serious sequelae. Here we present two unusual but serious complications of gastrostomy tubes causing suspected duodenal obstruction and subsequent gastric perforation in paediatric patients, requiring emergency operations. Furthermore, we would like to emphasize the importance of proper gastrostomy tube care and alert the caretakers of the potential sinister complications that can arise. We would also like to take this opportunity to suggest measures to prevent their occurrence.

Variation exists in the timing of tube feed initiation after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement. The aim of our study was to review outcomes of early tube feed (ETF) versus late tube feed (LTF) initiation after PEG tube placement.

We performed a retrospective review of all trauma patients who underwent PEG tube placement from 1/2014 to 12/2018. ETF was defined as initiation < 24 h and LTF > 24 h after placement. The primary outcome measure was feeding intolerance and secondary outcomes included post-operative complications. All statistical analyses were performed using standard statistical methods (e.g. Pearson's Chi-squared, Fisher's exact and Mann Whitney-U tests).

There were 295 patients (164 ETF and 131 LTF) that received a PEG tube at our level 1 trauma center. There was no difference with feeding intolerance at 12 h (5% vs. 4%; p = 0.88), 24 h (1% vs. 2%; p = 1.00), and 48 h (4% vs. 4%; p = 1.00). There was no difference when comparing intolerance symptoms such as nausea and vomiting (1% vs. 2%; p = 0.79), abdominal tenderness (2% vs. 3%; p = 0.76), high gastric residuals (2% vs. 2%; p = 1.00) and aspiration (0% vs. 2%; p = 0.39). There was no difference when comparing post-operative complications (4% vs. 8%; p = 0.21).

Early tube feeding after PEG placement is safe and equivalent to late tube feeding in the adult trauma population. Future prospective studies are warranted to establish the optimal timing for initiation of tube feeds after PEG tube placement.

Various approaches for enteral access exist, but because there is no single best approach it should be tailored to the needs of the patient. This article discusses the various enteral access techniques for nasoenteric tubes, gastrostomy, gastrojejunostomy, and direct jejunostomy as well as their indications, contraindications, and pitfalls. Also discussed is enteral access in altered anatomy. In addition, complications associated with these endoscopic techniques and how to either prevent or properly manage them are reviewed.

Despite frequent placement of pediatric laparoscopic gastrostomy tubes (GTs), no rigorous evaluation of initial feeding and advancement regimens exists. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine whether early enteral feeding after GT placement is associated with increased symptoms, procedural complications, or length of stay (LOS).

In this retrospective cohort study, the records of all patients at a tertiary care pediatric hospital who had gastrostomy placement were reviewed. Only patients fed exclusively via gastrostomy were included. Feeding was monitored starting with the first postoperative feed and subsequently in 24-hour increments. Adverse events were recorded based on clinical documentation.

A total of 480 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients who started feeds between 24 and 36 hours had a shorter LOS compared with those who started at 36-48 hours (P = .0072) or >48 hours (P < .0001). Patients requiring ≥60 hours to reach goal feeds had significantly longer LOS than the other groups. There was no difference in the distribution of the LOS based on percentage of goal feeds initiated. Patients who required ≥60 hours to attain goal feeds had the most feeding complications.

More aggressive feeding advancement and earlier initiation of feeds were associated with decreased LOS without an associated increase in adverse clinical events.

Jejunal tube feeding (JTF) is increasingly becoming the standard of care for children in whom gastric tube feeding is insufficient to achieve caloric needs. Given a lack of a systematic approach to the care of JTF in paediatric patients, the aim of this position paper is to provide expert guidance regarding the indications for its use and practical considerations to optimize its utility and safety.

A group of members of the Gastroenterology and Nutrition Committees of the European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition and of invited experts in the field was formed in September 2016 to produce this clinical guide. Seventeen clinical questions treating indications and contraindications, investigations before placement, techniques of placement, suitable feeds and feeding regimen, weaning from JTF, complications, long-term care, and ethical considerations were addressed.A systematic literature search was performed from 1982 to November 2018 using PubMed, the MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to evaluate the outcomes.During a consensus meeting, all recommendations were discussed and finalized. In the absence of evidence from randomized controlled trials, recommendations reflect the expert opinion of the authors.

A total of 33 recommendations were voted on using the nominal voting technique.

JTF is a safe and effective means of enteral feeding when gastric feeding is insufficient to meet caloric needs or is not possible. The decision to place a jejunal tube has to be made by close cooperation of a multidisciplinary team providing active follow-up and care.

This is an update of the review last published in 2011. It focuses on early postoperative enteral nutrition after lower gastrointestinal surgery. Traditional management consisted of 'nil by mouth', where patients receive fluids followed by solids after bowel function has returned. Although several trials have reported lower incidence of infectious complications and faster wound healing upon early feeding, other trials have shown no effect. The immediate advantage of energy intake (carbohydrates, protein or fat) could enhance recovery with fewer complications, and this warrants a systematic evaluation.

To evaluate whether early commencement of postoperative enteral nutrition (within 24 hours), oral intake and any kind of tube feeding (gastric, duodenal or jejunal), compared with traditional management (delayed nutritional supply) is associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (LoS), fewer complications, mortality and adverse events in patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery (distal to the ligament of Treitz).

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2017, issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 15 November 2017), Ovid Embase (1974 to 15 November 2017). We also searched for ongoing trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (15 November 2017). We handsearched reference lists of identified studies and previous systematic reviews.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing early commencement of enteral nutrition (within 24 hours) with no feeding in adult participants undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery.

Two review authors independently assessed study quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool tailored to this review and extracted data. Data analyses were conducted according to the Cochrane recommendations.We rated the quality of evidence according to GRADE.Primary outcomes were LoS and postoperative complications (wound infections, intraabdominal abscesses, anastomotic dehiscence, pneumonia).Secondary outcomes were: mortality, adverse events (nausea, vomiting), and quality of life (QoL).LoS was estimated using mean difference (MD (presented as mean +/- SD). For other outcomes we estimated the common risk ratio (RR) and calculated the associated 95% confidence intervals. For analysis, we used an inverse-variance random-effects model for the primary outcome (LoS) and Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models for the secondary outcomes. We also performed Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA).

We identified 17 RCTs with 1437 participants undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in two or more domains. Six studies were judged as having low risk of selection bias for random sequence generation and insufficient details were provided for judgement on allocation concealment in all 17 studies. With regards to performance and deception bias; 14 studies reported no attempt to blind participants and blinding of personnel was not discussed either. Only one study was judged as low risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessor. With regards to incomplete outcome data, three studies were judged to be at high risk because they had more than 10% difference in missing data between groups. For selective reporting, nine studies were judged as unclear as protocols were not provided and eight studies had issues with either missing data or incomplete reporting of results.LOS was reported in 16 studies (1346 participants). The mean LoS ranged from four days to 16 days in the early feeding groups and from 6.6 days to 23.5 days in the control groups. Mean difference (MD) in LoS was 1.95 (95% CI, -2.99 to -0.91, P < 0.001) days shorter in the early feeding group. However, there was substantial heterogeneity between included studies (I² = 81, %, Chi² = 78.98, P < 0.00001), thus the overall quality of evidence for LoS is low. These results were confirmed by the TSA showing that the cumulative Z-curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit.We found no differences in the incidence of postoperative complications: wound infection (12 studies, 1181 participants, RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.64 to 1.52, very low-quality evidence), intraabdominal abscesses (6 studies, 554 participants, RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.26 to 3.80, low-quality evidence), anastomotic leakage/dehiscence (13 studies, 1232 participants, RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.38 to 1.61, low-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 100), and pneumonia (10 studies, 954 participants, RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.32 to 2.42, low-quality evidence; NNTB = 333).Mortality was reported in 12 studies (1179 participants), and showed no between-group differences (RR = 0.56, 95%CI, 0.21 to 1.52, P = 0.26, I² = 0%, Chi² = 3.08, P = 0.96, low-quality evidence). The most commonly reported cause of death was anastomotic leakage, sepsis and acute myocardial infarction.Seven studies (613 participants) reported vomiting (RR 1.23, 95%CI, 0.96 to 1.58, P = 0.10, I² = 0%, Chi² = 4.98, P = 0.55, low-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 19), and two studies (118 participants) reported nausea (RR 0.95, 0.71 to 1.26, low-quality evidence). Four studies reported combined nausea and vomiting (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.51 to 1.74, very low-quality evidence). One study reported QoL assessment; the scores did not differ between groups at 30 days after discharge on either QoL scale EORTC QLQ-C30 or EORTC QlQ-OV28 (very low-quality evidence).

This review suggests that early enteral feeding may lead to a reduced postoperative LoS, however cautious interpretation must be taken due to substantial heterogeneity and low-quality evidence. For all other outcomes (postoperative complications, mortality, adverse events, and QoL) the findings are inconclusive, and further trials are justified to enhance the understanding of early feeding for these. In this updated review, only a few additional studies have been included, and these were small and of poor quality.To improve the evidence, future trials should address quality issues and focus on clearly defining and measuring postoperative complications to allow for better comparison between studies. However due to the introduction of fast track protocols which already include an early feeding component, future trials may be challenging. A more feasible trial may be to investigate the effect of differing postoperative energy intake regimens on relevant outcomes.

This is an update of the review last published in 2011. It focuses on early postoperative enteral nutrition after lower gastrointestinal surgery. Traditional management consisted of 'nil by mouth', where patients receive fluids followed by solids after bowel function has returned. Although several trials have reported lower incidence of infectious complications and faster wound healing upon early feeding, other trials have shown no effect. The immediate advantage of energy intake (carbohydrates, protein or fat) could enhance recovery with fewer complications, and this warrants a systematic evaluation.

To evaluate whether early commencement of postoperative enteral nutrition (within 24 hours), oral intake and any kind of tube feeding (gastric, duodenal or jejunal), compared with traditional management (delayed nutritional supply) is associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (LoS), fewer complications, mortality and adverse events in patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery (distal to the ligament of Treitz).

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2017, issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 15 November 2017), Ovid Embase (1974 to 15 November 2017). We also searched for ongoing trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (15 November 2017). We handsearched reference lists of identified studies and previous systematic reviews.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing early commencement of enteral nutrition (within 24 hours) with no feeding in adult participants undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery.

Two review authors independently assessed study quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool tailored to this review and extracted data. Data analyses were conducted according to the Cochrane recommendations.We rated the quality of evidence according to GRADE.Primary outcomes were LoS and postoperative complications (wound infections, intraabdominal abscesses, anastomotic dehiscence, pneumonia).Secondary outcomes were: mortality, adverse events (nausea, vomiting), and quality of life (QoL).LoS was estimated using mean difference (MD (presented as mean +/- SD). For other outcomes we estimated the common risk ratio (RR) and calculated the associated 95% confidence intervals. For analysis, we used an inverse-variance random-effects model for the primary outcome (LoS) and Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models for the secondary outcomes. We also performed Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA).

We identified 17 RCTs with 1437 participants undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in two or more domains. Six studies were judged as having low risk of selection bias for random sequence generation and insufficient details were provided for judgement on allocation concealment in all 17 studies. With regards to performance and deception bias; 14 studies reported no attempt to blind participants and blinding of personnel was not discussed either. Only one study was judged as low risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessor. With regards to incomplete outcome data, three studies were judged to be at high risk because they had more than 10% difference in missing data between groups. For selective reporting, nine studies were judged as unclear as protocols were not provided and eight studies had issues with either missing data or incomplete reporting of results.LOS was reported in 16 studies (1346 participants). The mean LoS ranged from four days to 16 days in the early feeding groups and from 6.6 days to 23.5 days in the control groups. Mean difference (MD) in LoS was 1.95 (95% CI, -2.99 to -0.91, P < 0.001) days shorter in the early feeding group. However, there was substantial heterogeneity between included studies (I² = 81, %, Chi² = 78.98, P < 0.00001), thus the overall quality of evidence for LoS is low. These results were confirmed by the TSA showing that the cumulative Z-curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit.We found no differences in the incidence of postoperative complications: wound infection (12 studies, 1181 participants, RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.64 to 1.52, very low-quality evidence), intraabdominal abscesses (6 studies, 554 participants, RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.26 to 3.80, low-quality evidence), anastomotic leakage/dehiscence (13 studies, 1232 participants, RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.38 to 1.61, low-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 100), and pneumonia (10 studies, 954 participants, RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.32 to 2.42, low-quality evidence; NNTB = 333).Mortality was reported in 12 studies (1179 participants), and showed no between-group differences (RR = 0.56, 95%CI, 0.21 to 1.52, P = 0.26, I² = 0%, Chi² = 3.08, P = 0.96, low-quality evidence). The most commonly reported cause of death was anastomotic leakage, sepsis and acute myocardial infarction.Seven studies (613 participants) reported vomiting (RR 1.23, 95%CI, 0.96 to 1.58, P = 0.10, I² = 0%, Chi² = 4.98, P = 0.55, low-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 19), and two studies (118 participants) reported nausea (RR 0.95, 0.71 to 1.26, low-quality evidence). Four studies reported combined nausea and vomiting (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.51 to 1.74, very low-quality evidence). One study reported QoL assessment; the scores did not differ between groups at 30 days after discharge on either QoL scale EORTC QLQ-C30 or EORTC QlQ-OV28 (very low-quality evidence).

This review suggests that early enteral feeding may lead to a reduced postoperative LoS, however cautious interpretation must be taken due to substantial heterogeneity and low-quality evidence. For all other outcomes (postoperative complications, mortality, adverse events, and QoL) the findings are inconclusive, and further trials are justified to enhance the understanding of early feeding for these. In this updated review, only a few additional studies have been included, and these were small and of poor quality.To improve the evidence, future trials should address quality issues and focus on clearly defining and measuring postoperative complications to allow for better comparison between studies. However due to the introduction of fast track protocols which already include an early feeding component, future trials may be challenging. A more feasible trial may be to investigate the effect of differing postoperative energy intake regimens on relevant outcomes.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is a procedure frequently done in the intensive care unit. The use of a traditional endoscope can be difficult in cases of esophageal stenosis and theoretically confers an increased risk of infection due to its complex architecture. We describe a technique using the bronchoscope, which allows navigation through stenotic esophageal lesions and also minimizes the risk of endoscopy-associated infections.

Prospective series of patients who had PEG tube placement guided by a bronchoscope. Procedural outcomes including successful placement, duration of the entire procedure, time needed for passage of the bronchoscope from the oropharynx to the major curvature, PEG tube removal rate, and mortality were collected. Procedural adverse events, including infections and long-term PEG-related complications, were recorded.

A total of 84 patients underwent bronchoscope-guided PEG tube placement. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube insertion was completed successfully in 82 (97.6%) patients. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement was performed immediately following percutaneous tracheostomy in 82.1%. Thirty-day mortality and 1-year mortality were 11.9% and 31%, respectively. Overall, minor complications occurred in 2.4% of patients, while there were no major complications. No serious infectious complications were identified and no endoscope-associated hospital acquired infections were documented.

The use of the bronchoscope can be safely and effectively used for PEG tube placement. The use of bronchoscope rather than a gastroscope has several advantages, which include the ease of navigating through complex aerodigestive disorders such as strictures and fistulas as well as decreased health-care utilization. In addition, it may have a theoretical advantage of minimizing infections related to complex endoscopes.

The prevalence of disease-related malnutrition in Western European hospitals is estimated to be about 30%. There is no consensus whether poor nutritional status causes poorer clinical outcome or if it is merely associated with it. The intention with all forms of nutrition support is to increase uptake of essential nutrients and improve clinical outcome. Previous reviews have shown conflicting results with regard to the effects of nutrition support.

To assess the benefits and harms of nutrition support versus no intervention, treatment as usual, or placebo in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk.

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), LILACS (BIREME), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp); ClinicalTrials.gov; Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP); Google Scholar; and BIOSIS, as well as relevant bibliographies of review articles and personal files. All searches are current to February 2016.

We include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication type, publication date, and language, comparing nutrition support versus control in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk. We exclude trials assessing non-standard nutrition support.

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. We used trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias). We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control for the risks of random errors. We considered a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We used GRADE methodology. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life.

We included 244 randomised clinical trials with 28,619 participants that met our inclusion criteria. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias. Two trials accounted for one-third of all included participants. The included participants were heterogenous with regard to disease (20 different medical specialties). The experimental interventions were parenteral nutrition (86 trials); enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) (80 trials); oral nutrition support (55 trials); mixed experimental intervention (12 trials); general nutrition support (9 trials); and fortified food (2 trials). The control interventions were treatment as usual (122 trials); no intervention (107 trials); and placebo (15 trials). In 204/244 trials, the intervention lasted three days or more.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term mortality (end of intervention). The absolute risk was 8.3% across the control groups compared with 7.8% (7.1% to 8.5%) in the intervention groups, based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.03, P = 0.16, 21,758 participants, 114 trials, low quality of evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for long-term mortality (maximum follow-up). The absolute risk was 13.2% in the control group compared with 12.2% (11.6% to 13%) following nutritional interventions based on a RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, P = 0.03, 23,170 participants, 127 trials, low quality of evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term serious adverse events. The absolute risk was 9.9% in the control groups versus 9.2% (8.5% to 10%), with nutrition based on the RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, P = 0.07, 22,087 participants, 123 trials, low quality of evidence). At long-term follow-up, the reduction in the risk of serious adverse events was 1.5%, from 15.2% in control groups to 13.8% (12.9% to 14.7%) following nutritional support (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, P = 0.004, 23,413 participants, 137 trials, low quality of evidence). However, the Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.Trial Sequential Analysis of enteral nutrition alone showed that enteral nutrition might reduce serious adverse events at maximum follow-up in people with different diseases. We could find no beneficial effect of oral nutrition support or parenteral nutrition support on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events in any subgroup.Only 16 trials assessed health-related quality of life. We performed a meta-analysis of two trials reporting EuroQoL utility score at long-term follow-up and found very low quality of evidence for effects of nutritional support on quality of life (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 3961 participants, two trials). Trial Sequential Analyses showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject clinically relevant intervention effects on quality of life.Nutrition support may increase weight at short-term follow-up (MD 1.32 kg, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.00, 5445 participants, 68 trials, very low quality of evidence).

There is low-quality evidence for the effects of nutrition support on mortality and serious adverse events. Based on the results of our review, it does not appear to lead to a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more in either all-cause mortality or serious adverse events at short-term and long-term follow-up.There is very low-quality evidence for an increase in weight with nutrition support at the end of treatment in hospitalised adults determined to be at nutritional risk. The effects of nutrition support on all remaining outcomes are unclear.Despite the clinically heterogenous population and the high risk of bias of all included trials, our analyses showed limited signs of statistical heterogeneity. Further trials may be warranted, assessing enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) for different patient groups. Future trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors and low risks of random errors, and they also ought to assess health-related quality of life.

Gastrostomy tubes are inserted via multiple techniques to provide a route for enteral feeding in the pediatric population. This review compares the rate of major complications and resource utilization associated with the various insertion techniques.

Major electronic databases were queried for comparative studies of two or more insertion techniques, including open, laparoscopic, percutaneous endoscopic, or fluoroscopic guided. Major complications were defined as reoperation within 1 year or death. Screening of eligible studies, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality were conducted independently by two reviewers. Forest and funnel plots were generated for outcomes using Revman 5.1, with p<0.05 considered significant.

Twenty-two studies with a total of 5438 patients met inclusion criteria. No differences in major complications were noted in studies comparing open versus laparoscopic approaches or open versus PEG. Studies comparing laparoscopic gastrostomy and PEG revealed a significantly increased risk in major complications with PEG (n=10 studies, OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.17-0.51, p<0.0001). The number needed to treat to reduce one major complication by abandoning PEG is 45.

PEG is associated with an increased risk of major complications when compared to the laparoscopic approach. Advantages in operative time appear outweighed by the increased safety profile of laparoscopic gastrostomy insertion.

To report the results of early enteral feeding in patients with cancer after outpatient placement of a percutaneous fluoroscopy-guided gastrostomy (PFG).

From January 2008 through December 2008, 121 consecutive patients with cancer underwent outpatient placement of a PFG for nutrition. Of these patients, 118 patients met criteria for early feeding, and 113 were successfully fed early (after at least 3 hours). Of the patients fed early, 5 had insufficient follow-up for further analysis leaving 108 patients for outcomes analysis. After placement of the PFG, patients were put on low-wall suction via the PFG for 1 hour followed by feeding via the PFG at least 3 hours after placement. Follow-up evaluation was done the next business day. The medical records were reviewed for 30-day outcomes of early feeding, technical aspects of the procedures, and complications.

After placement of the PFG, 98% (118 of 121) of patients met criteria for early feeding, and 93% (113 of 121) of patients were successfully fed early. The median time between the end of the procedure and initiation of feeding was 4 hours (interquartile range, 3.7-4.4 h). The 30-day minor complication rate was 14% (15 of 108), and the 30-day major complication rate was 1% (1 of 108). No complications were directly attributable to early feeding.

Early initiation of tube feedings after outpatient placement of a PFG was well tolerated in patients with cancer and carried comparable risks to previously reported results using traditional delayed feeding protocols. Early feeding provided patients with prompt enteral nutrition and eliminated the need for routine hospital admission after the procedure.

Gastroenteric tube feeding plays a major role in the management of patients with poor voluntary intake, chronic neurological or mechanical dysphagia or gut dysfunction, and patients who are critically ill. However, despite the benefits and widespread use of enteral tube feeding, some patients experience complications. This review aims to discuss and compare current knowledge regarding the clinical application of enteral tube feeding, together with associated complications and special aspects. We conducted an extensive literature search on PubMed, Embase and Medline using index terms relating to enteral access, enteral feeding/nutrition, tube feeding, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy/jejunostomy, endoscopic nasoenteric tube, nasogastric tube, and refeeding syndrome. The literature showed common routes of enteral access to include nasoenteral tube, gastrostomy and jejunostomy, while complications fall into four major categories: mechanical, e.g., tube blockage or removal; gastrointestinal, e.g., diarrhea; infectious e.g., aspiration pneumonia, tube site infection; and metabolic, e.g., refeeding syndrome, hyperglycemia. Although the type and frequency of complications arising from tube feeding vary considerably according to the chosen access route, gastrointestinal complications are without doubt the most common. Complications associated with enteral tube feeding can be reduced by careful observance of guidelines, including those related to food composition, administration rate, portion size, food temperature and patient supervision.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the preferred route of feeding and nutritional support in patients with a functional gastrointestinal system who require long-term enteral nutrition. Besides its well-known advantages over parenteral nutrition, PEG offers superior access to the gastrointestinal system over surgical methods. Considering that nowadays PEG tube placement is one of the most common endoscopic procedures performed worldwide, knowing its indications and contraindications is of paramount importance in current medicine. PEG tubes are sometimes placed inappropriately in patients unable to tolerate adequate oral intake because of incorrect and unrealistic understanding of their indications and what they can accomplish. Broadly, the two main indications of PEG tube placement are enteral feeding and stomach decompression. On the other hand, distal enteral obstruction, severe uncorrectable coagulopathy and hemodynamic instability constitute the main absolute contraindications for PEG tube placement in hospitalized patients. Although generally considered to be a safe procedure, there is the potential for both minor and major complications. Awareness of these potential complications, as well as understanding routine aftercare of the catheter, can improve the quality of care for patients with a PEG tube. These complications can generally be classified into three major categories: endoscopic technical difficulties, PEG procedure-related complications and late complications associated with PEG tube use and wound care. In this review we describe a variety of minor and major tube-related complications as well as strategies for their management and avoidance. Different methods of percutaneous PEG tube placement into the stomach have been described in the literature with the "pull" technique being the most common method. In the last section of this review, the reader is presented with a brief discussion of these procedures, techniques and related issues. Despite the mentioned PEG tube placement complications, this procedure has gained worldwide popularity as a safe enteral access for nutrition in patients with a functional gastrointestinal system.

Prior to the 1980s, permanent feeding tube placement was limited to an open surgical procedure until Gauderer and colleagues described the safe placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. This procedure has since expanded beyond the realm of surgeons to include gastroenterologists, thoracic surgeons, and interventional radiologists. In some academic centers, interventional pulmonologists (IPs) also perform this procedure. We describe the safety and feasibility of PEG tube placement by IPs in a critically ill population.

Prospectively collected data of patients in a medical ICU undergoing PEG tube placement from 2003 to 2007 at a tertiary-care center were reviewed. Inclusion criteria included all PEG tube insertions performed or attempted by the IP team. Data were collected on mortality, PEG tube removal rate, total number of days with PEG tube, and complication rates. Follow-up included hospital length of stay and phone contact after discharge. Procedural and long-term PEG-related complications were recorded.

Seventy-two patients were studied. PEG tube insertion was completed successfully in 70 (97.2%), with follow-up data in 69 of these 70. Thirty-day mortality was 11.7%. No deaths or immediate complications were attributed to PEG tube placement. PEG tube removal occurred in 27 patients, with a median time to removal of 76 days.

Bedside PEG tube placement can be performed safely and effectively by trained IPs. Because percutaneous tracheostomy is currently performed by IPs, the ability to place both PEG and tracheostomy tubes at the same time has the potential for decreased costs, anesthesia exposure, procedural times, ventilator times, and ICU days.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the procedure of choice for long-term enteral feeding.

This prospective observational study was carried out to compare the safety of commencing feeding 3 h compared to 16-24 h after PEG tube placement.

One hundred and ten patients with oropharyngeal malignancies who had consented for PEG were enrolled. Trial-specific consent and IRB approval were not obtained because at the time when this study was done, this was not mandatory for observational studies which involved standard procedures. Alternate patients were started on early feeding within 3 h (group I) or after overnight observation of 16 to 24 h (group II). Five hundred milliliters of Ringer's lactate was infused over 4 h initially, followed 2 h later by 200 mL of formula feed. The patients were advised to take bolus feeds of 200 mL every 2 h and oral feeds ad libitum from the next day. All patients were evaluated on days 1, 2, 7, and 30.

There were 55 patients (47 males) in group I and 54 patients (38 males) in group II who were matched for age (mean age 46.1 and 46.1 years, respectively). Complications included PEG site infection (1), peristomal leak (3), and displacement of the PEG tube (1) in group I. PEG site infection was seen in five patients in group II. All the complications were managed conservatively on an ambulatory basis.

Initiation of tube feeding 3 h after an uncomplicated PEG was safe, well tolerated, and helped to reduce the hospital stay.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the preferred method to provide nutritional support for patients with normal gastrointestinal function but cannot be fed orally for a variety of reasons. Owing to safety concerns, the first feeding after PEG tube placement is generally delayed. Early feeding may be an option; however, childhood studies regarding early feeding after the PEG procedure are highly insufficient.

A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted to compare early (4th hour) and late (12th hour) feeding after the PEG procedure. The PEG process was performed with the standard pull technique. Prophylactic antimicrobial drugs were not used. Complications such as gastric residue after feeding, vomiting, fever, systemic signs of infection, and duration of hospital stay were recorded. Tube feeding training was given to parents during their stay in the hospital in both groups. In the first and third days following PEG, the patients were visited by an experienced nurse in their homes and evaluated in terms of potential complications.

The study was completed with a total of 69 patients: 35 in the early feeding group and 34 in the late feeding group. The demographic characteristics of the groups were similar. Vomiting was rare and detected as similar in both groups (early feeding group 8.5% [3/35], late feeding group 8.8% [3/34], P = 1.00). Rarely, minor gastric residue was observed in both groups (early feeding group 11.4%, late feeding group 8.8% [P = 1.00]). The amount of gastric residue in the early feeding group was a maximum of 13.2 mL, whereas the late feeding group had a maximum of 14.3 mL. The average duration of stay in the hospital for the early and late feeding groups was calculated as 6.7 ± 0.64 and 28.3 ± 3.74 hours, respectively (P < 0.001). Leakage from gastrostomy fistulas, peritonitis, and aspiration were not observed in any patients.

The feeding at the fourth hour after PEG placement was safe and well tolerated by patients and shortened the duration of the hospital stay. The use of prophylactic antibiotics seems to be unnecessary before the procedure.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) has published recommendations in regards to anticoagulant (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) therapy management during endoscopic procedures. So far, no study has assessed either ASGE recommendation compliance during percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement or procedure-associated complication rates as related to the observance of these recommendations. The aims of this study were to compare the incidence and type of complications during PEG placement in patients receiving or not receiving AC and/or AP therapy and to determine the compliance with ASGE's AC and AP management guidelines.

Medical files of patients who underwent PEG placement from January 2004 to December 2008 were reviewed. Clinical and procedure-related data were recorded. Patients were separated into 1 of 2 groups: patients under AP and/or AC therapy prior to PEG placement (n = 51) and a control group of patients (n = 40) not receiving any AP and/or AC treatment at least 6 months prior to the procedure.

A total of 91 patients (51 cases) were included. Groups were comparable in demographics and clinical characteristics. No differences in the frequency and type of complications were found between groups. ASGE's recommendations were not followed in any of these patients.

Overall PEG placement complication rate was 13.7%. AP therapy may be safely discontinued closer to the time of endoscopic procedure than the time currently recommended by the ASGE guidelines.

Literature suggests early post-percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding is as safe as delayed feeding. No consensus exists regarding feeding initiation after PEG placement. We performed a national survey to assess current practice regarding feeding initiation after PEG placement as well as clinical and practitioner based factors associated with early or delayed feeding.

A survey assessing feeding initiation in general ward and intensive care unit patients, current literature knowledge, motility agent use, number of PEG placed per year, along with physician demographics was emailed to 5256 gastroenterologists. Statistical analysis was done using SAS software (V.9).

28% of gastroenterologists responded. Amongst respondents, 59% were private consultants, 25% academic physicians and 16% trainees. Private gastroenterologists initiated feeding earlier (≤12 h) compared to academic gastroenterologists in general ward and intensive care unit patients (p<0.0001). Amongst respondents, 41% of physicians were aware of current literature on post-PEG feeding times. Physicians aware of current literature started feeding earlier (<12h) compared to those not aware in general ward and intensive care unit patients (p=0.0002). Male physicians instituted feeding earlier than females (p<0.0001).

Feeding initiation after PEG placement varies amongst gastroenterologists. Further studies are required to explore obstacles in standardizing post-PEG feeding practices.

We sought to conduct an assessment of the practice of gastrostomy (G) tube placement across an entire city, which would reflect usual clinical care as compared with referral center practice.

We reviewed and retrospectively extracted data from patient records for all percutaneous endoscopic G (PEG) and radiological percutaneous G (RPG) tube placements at six Winnipeg hospitals between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007.

A total of 418 patients had G tubes (376 PEG, 42 RPG) inserted during the study period. The most common indications were cerebrovascular accidents (25%), head and neck cancer (23%), and head trauma (10%). The position of the external bolster was not documented in 38% of patients. The median time to the first complication was 10 days, initiation of feeding was 48 hours, and tube removal was 40 days. Complications developed in 102 (24%) patients. Patients with RPG tubes had more infections and were less likely to receive prophylactic antibiotics (P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, complications were more likely to occur in patients with RPG tubes and after insertions by lowest procedure volume physicians. Overall mortality was 12% within 30 days of G-tube placement. Death of one patient was directly related to peritonitis after G-tube insertion.

In usual clinical practice, there is an underuse of prophylactic antibiotics and a delay in the institution of nutritional support after G-tube placement. A small but significant proportion of patients may develop major complications, with associated risk of mortality. The higher complication rate after procedures performed by lowest volume physicians needs further evaluation.

Enteral nutrition support (ENS) involves both the delivery of nutrients via feeding tubes and the provision of specialised oral nutritional supplements. ENS is indicated in a patient with at least a partially functioning digestive tract when oral intake is inadequate or intake of normal food is inappropriate to meet the patients' needs. The aim of this comment by the Committee on Nutrition of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition is to provide a clinical practice guide to ENS, based on the available evidence and the clinical expertise of the authors. Statements and recommendations are presented, and future research needs highlighted, with a particular emphasis placed on a practical approach to ENS.Among the wide array of enteral formulations, standard polymeric feeds based on cow's-milk protein with fibre and age adapted for energy and nutrient content are suitable for most paediatric patients. Whenever possible, intragastric is preferred to postpyloric delivery of nutrients, and intermittent feeding is preferred to continuous feeding because it is more physiological. An anticipated duration of enteral nutrition (EN) exceeding 4 to 6 weeks is an indication for gastrostomy or enterostomy. Among the various gastrostomy techniques available, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is currently the first option. In general, both patients and caregivers express satisfaction with this procedure, although it is associated with a number of well-recognised complications. We strongly recommend the development and application of procedural protocols that include scrupulous attention to hygiene, as well as regular monitoring by a multidisciplinary nutrition support team to minimise the risk of EN-associated complications.

Percutaneous endoscopic placement of a gastrostomy tube is a common procedure to provide feeding access in children. The practice has been to withhold the initial feeding for a prescribed length of time because of safety concerns. The shortest reported time to feeding in pediatric patients is 6 hours.

A prospective randomized trial was devised to compare the tolerance of feedings at 3 and 6 hours after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. The change in abdominal girth before and 1 hour after the initial feeding, any vomiting, and the gastric residual volume before the next feeding were recorded. The length of stay was also documented.

Forty successive patients who met the entry criteria were enrolled, with 20 in each group. There were no statistical differences between the groups for age or sex distribution. There were no significant differences in the recorded episodes of emesis from either group (median value 0 in both groups, P = 0.82). The changes in abdominal girths were also similar and statistically not significantly different (median values 0 for 3 hours vs 0.5 cm for 6 hours, P = 0.29). Gastric residual volumes were low overall and not different depending on the time that feedings were started (median value 0 in both groups, P = 0.47). The length of stay was statistically the same between the 3- and 6-hour feeding groups (median values 30.7 hours for 3 hours vs 30.0 hours for 6 hours, P = 0.92).

Feedings after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement can be started as soon as 3 hours after the procedure is completed with no increase in complications.

Malnutrition is common in patients with acute and chronic illness. Nutritional management of these malnourished patients is an essential part of healthcare. Enteral feeding is one component of nutritional support. It is the preferred method of nutritional support in patients that are not receiving adequate oral nutrition and have a functioning gastrointestinal tract (GIT). This method of nutritional support has undergone progression over recent times. The method of placement of enteral feeding tubes has evolved due to development of new feeding tubes and endoscopic technology. Enteral feeding can be divided into methods that provide short-term and long-term access to the GIT. This review article focuses on the current range of methods of gaining access to the GIT to provide enteral feed.