Carol Rees Parrish, R.D., M.S., Series Editor Gastric .

NUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #42Carol Rees Parrish, R.D., M.S., Series EditorGastric versus Jejunal Feeding:Evidence or Emotion?Joe KrenitskyDelivery of enteral feeding into the small bowel has been suggested as a strategy toreduce the risk of aspiration pneumonia and improve the delivery of nutrition. However,randomized studies of gastric versus enteric small bowel feeding have been inconclusive,in part due to the methodological limitations and small number of patients in each study.The conclusions of three different meta-analysis were inconsistent; the efficacy of smallbowel feedings to reduce pneumonia incidence or improve delivery of nutrition remainsan area of persistent debate. The goal of this article is to critically evaluate the literatureavailable on gastric versus small bowel feedings so that rational and safe feeding protocols can be developed that are based on the best available evidence.INTRODUCTIONn patients that require nutrition support, enteral nutrition (EN) results in reduced infectious complications,and is more cost effective compared to parenteralnutrition (PN) (1). The knowledge of the benefits of ENhas led to increasing acceptance and use of enteral feeding, especially in critically ill patients. However, thereremains a substantial reluctance to utilize enteral feedings in some clinical situations due to concerns of feeding intolerance and aspiration risk. It is clear that someof these concerns are perceptions of feeding intoleranceIJoe Krenitsky, M.S., R.D., Nutrition Support Specialist, Digestive Health Center of Excellence, Universityof Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA.46PRACTICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY SEPTEMBER 2006that have been challenged in recent investigations. Forexample, research demonstrating successful EN insevere pancreatitis, hypotension with pressors, andimmediately after bowel anastomosis, all highlight thefeasibility of EN in settings that may have previouslybeen considered a contraindication to EN (2–6).It is true, however, that many critically ill patientsexhibit delayed gastric emptying and have multiple riskfactors for aspiration pneumonia (7). The acquisition ofnosocomial pneumonia portends a more complicatedhospitalization with increased length of stay, hospitalcosts, and mortality (8). Clinicians have searched for ameans to retain the advantage of EN while reducing therisks of feeding intolerance and aspiration. Strategiessuch as the use of prokinetic medications, elevation of(continued on page 49)

Gastric versus Jejunal FeedingNUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #42(continued from page 46)the head-of-bed and placing the feeding tube beyondthe pylorus, have all been suggested as possible ways toreduce the risk of aspiration.Placement of the feeding tube beyond the pylorusmay appear to be an obvious choice to reduce aspirationrisk, and intuitively, would not appear to have any clinical drawbacks. However, like many other intuitivestrategies applied to the critical care setting, controlledtrials have yielded unexpected results. There are over 10controlled trials that have investigated gastric versussmall bowel feeding and the risk of aspiration, and nostudy has demonstrated a significant reduction in pneumonia incidence or mortality with small bowel feedings.Although some studies have suggested that small bowelfeeding allows improved feeding tolerance and nutritionprovision, other studies have reported no significant difference in feeding tolerance between groups. The individual studies of gastric versus small bowel feedinghave all been hampered by a small sample size. In anattempt to overcome the limitation of small sample size,at least 3 meta-analyses of these studies have been published (9–11). However, due to limitations in the individual studies and different conclusions of each metaanalysis, there is a lack of consensus among expertsregarding the role of post-pyloric feeding in reducingaspiration risk, pneumonia incidence, or improvingfeeding tolerance and delivery. This qualitative reviewwill discuss the implications of the available researchand review the findings of the 3 available meta-analysisin terms of aspiration risk, incidence of pneumonia andfeeding tolerance. It will focus on those studies thathave randomized patients to gastric versus small bowelfeedings that investigated reflux, aspiration, pneumonia,or feeding adequacy. Research designed to investigategastric versus small bowel feeding in the setting of pancreatitis has been excluded because research into thesafety of gastric feedings in pancreatitis is ongoing,inconclusive and the details of that topic would fill anentire article by itself.CLINICAL TRIALS—STUDY DESIGNThese trials have been conducted in a variety of patientpopulations including medical, surgical, neurologicaland trauma ICU patients, as well as non-ICU patients.There are important methodological differences betweenthe studies that make direct comparison difficult. One ofthe most evident differences between the studies is theposition of the tip of the feeding tube. Five studiesintended to place the feeding tube into the duodenum(12–16), while 3 studies attempted to place the feedingtube into the jejunum (17–19). Two studies did not statethe precise location of the tube (20–21). It is important tonote the position of the feeding tubes, both in interpretation of the significance of the study results, as well as inthe clinical implementation of feeding protocols. Refluxoccurs commonly from the proximal small bowel(15,22) and feedings must be infused beyond the ligament of Treiz to minimize the possibility of reflux (23).Heyland reported that as the feeding tube was placed ina more distal position there were less episodes of gastroesophageal regurgitation (15). However, somereviews and practice guidelines do not differentiatebetween “post-pyloric” or “small bowel” placement(which could mean proximal duodenum) versus jejunalplacement of feeding tubes. In this review, the authorwill use the terms small bowel or post-pyloric as ageneric term and for studies that do not specify locationof the tube beyond the stomach; the term “jejunal” willonly be used when studies have specified placement distal to the duodenum. Another important considerationthat is not equally controlled for in each study is the possible displacement of feeding tubes during the study. Frequent displacement of post-pyloric feeding tubes hasbeen described in some settings. At least one studyreported that 13% of the jejunal group had to be crossedover to the gastric group due to tube displacement duringthe study (17). If a small bore nasogastric (NG) or orogastric (OG) tube is used, it is also possible that some ofthe gastric feeding groups actually received small bowelfeedings during the study. A number of studies do notreport if tube position was reconfirmed during the studyperiod (13,14,17,19,21).Location of the Feeding PortsConcurrent Gastric DecompressionThere are at least 10 randomized studies that have investigated gastric versus small bowel feeding (Table 1).An additional aspect that varies in some of the studieswas the decision to suction gastric secretions in thePRACTICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY SEPTEMBER 200649

Gastric versus Jejunal FeedingNUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #42Table 1Gastric vs Jejunal Feeding TrialsTube copicallyplacedNot reportedNot usedNo33 malnourishedhospitalizedpatientsSecond portionduodenum –various methodsEvery 3 daysNot reportedNoKortbeek et al.199980 trauma ICUpatientsFluoro placedduodenumNot reportedProkinetics usedafter 24 hours.NoKearns et al.200044 medical ICUBlind orfluoroscopicplacement intoduodenumNot reported1 dose with tubeplacement onlyNoEsparza et al.200154 mixed ICUpatientsTranspyloric –not specifiedContinuousmonitoring(see paper)Prokinetics used"as required"NoHeyland et al.200139 medical/surgicalICU patientsBlind orendoscopicallyinto duodenumPosition reconfirmedonly when suspicionof displacementProkinetics used"as required"YesDay et al.200125 NeurologicalICUBlind-placementto duodenumNot reportedNot usedNoNeumann et al.200260 general ICUNot specifiedNot specifiedNot usedNoDavies et al200266 Mixed ICUEndoscopicplacednasojejunalEvery 3 daysNot usedYesMontejo et al.2002110 mixed ICUpatientsDual-lumennaso G-JNot specifiedNot usedyesStudyPatientsTube PositionMontecalvo et al.199238 surgical andmedical ICUStrong et al.1992Used with permission from the University of Virginia Health System Nutrition Support Traineeship Syllabus (53)small bowel feeding group. Three of the studies placeda nasogastric tube to suction or drainage in all patientswith small bowel feeding (15,18,19), while the otherseven studies did not.Defining PneumoniaThe method of diagnosing pneumonia also differedbetween the various studies. Two of the trials usedradio-labeled enteral feedings to detect gastroesophageal regurgitation and aspiration (15,20). The50PRACTICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY SEPTEMBER 2006other studies relied on various clinical diagnoses ofpneumonia. Clinical diagnosis of pneumonia has beencriticized as non-specific in some patient populations(24). Some components of clinical diagnosis rely onsubjective interpretation that can be a source of significant bias (especially in those studies that are not double-blind). Only 2 studies reported a double-blind protocol, that is, those involved in the diagnosis of pneumonia could not know the tube position. In contrast tostudies that define aspiration via the presence of radiolabeled feeding in the pulmonary tract, clinical diag-

Gastric versus Jejunal FeedingNUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #42OutcomesGastric ResidualCutoff (mL)PneumoniaTime to reach feed goalFeeding adequacy 250 twice in a rowNot significantly differentNot ReportedSignificantly greater percentageof goal in jejunal groupNot reportedNot significantly differentNot significantly differentNot significantly different 250Not significantly differentShorter time to reach fullfeeds in duodenal group.Not reported 150No significantly differentNot reportedSignificantly greater percentageof goal in duodenal group 150Microaspiration notsignificantly differentNot reportedNot significantly different 200Microaspiration notsignificantly different(trend only)Not reportedNot reportedNot significantly differentNot reportedNot significantly different 200Not significantly differentDelayed in jejunal groupNot reported 250 or 2000in 48 hrs totalNot significantly differentDelay in starting in jejunalgroupNot significantly different 300Not significantly differentNotNot significantly differentnosis of pneumonia does not permit differentiationbetween aspiration of gastric contents versus aspiration of oral-pharyngeal secretions.SMALL BOWEL FEEDING ANDPNEUMONIA INCIDENCENo individual randomized study has reported a significant decrease in pneumonia or reduction in mortalitywith the use of post-pyloric feeding. However, due tothe relatively low incidence of pneumonia, none of theNot reportedstudies enrolled adequate numbers of patients to detecta significant difference in pneumonia. In order to overcome the limitation of small study size, three differentmeta-analyses have been completed (9–11). Two ofthe three meta-analysis have concluded that there wasno significant outcome advantage with post-pyloricfeeding (10,11), but one meta-analysis did report outcome benefits (9). The meta-analysis that reported areduction in pneumonia incidence has been criticizedbecause it included a study not designed to directlycompare gastric and small bowel feeding (11,25). ThePRACTICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY SEPTEMBER 200651