Background and Aims: The risk of aspiration in enteral nutrition applications increases in patients with a functional gastrointestinal system due to reasons such as vomiting and high gastric residual volume. However, the use of nasointestinal tube is generally more advantageous than parenteral nutrition for better clinical outcomes in patients with fistula from the gastrointestinal tract or in those with pancreatitis. Despite the merits of nasointestinal tube feeding with respect to the clinical outcomes, it is necessary to make a careful decision owing to its high cost and difficulty in placement. Materials and Methods: Here, we retrospectively evaluated the patients who underwent follow-up examination at the nutrition outpatient clinic and other clinics between 01/01/2018 and 01/01/2019, we also evaluated and analyzed the overall effectiveness and problems associated with the use of the nasointestinal tube (NIT) for enteral nutrition. Results: In the study, 85 patients who underwent NIT insertion in the past 1 year were retrospectively examined. Among these, 41.1% (n = 37) patients were diagnosed with neurological diseases, 43.53% (n = 37) with internal diseases, and 15.3% (n = 13) with surgical diseases. NIT was placed in 8.23% (n = 7) of the patients due to the presence of fistula, in 31.8% (n = 27) for vomiting and high residual volume, in 7.05% (n = 6) for pancreatitis, and in 52.9% (n = 45) for high aspiration risk. The NIT was placed in the jejunal region on the 1st day in 69.41% (n = 59) of patients, on the 2nd day in 11.76% (n = 10), and on the 3rd day in 9.41% (n = 8). Although the NIT was placed in the desired region in 90.58% of the patients, it was not placed in the desired region in 9.41% (n = 8) of the patients. This method could not be used effectively in the treatment plan, because 15.29% (n = 13) of the patients pulled the tube and the tube in 15.29% (n = 13) patients was clogged. In 60% of the patients, the method was used effectively during the planned period. Conclusion: Although the nasointestinal tube feeding method is an advantageous method to continue enteral nutrition, the success rates with respect to the placement are controversial. However, the knowledge and understanding of the placement method increases with the success of this method. The desired effective enteral nutrition can be ensured in cases where the indication for nasointestinal tube placement is accurate.
Background and Aims: The risk of aspiration in enteral nutrition applications increases in patients with a functional gastrointestinal system due to reasons such as vomiting and high gastric residual volume. However, the use of the nasointestinal tube is generally more advantageous than parenteral nutrition for better clinical outcomes in patients with fistula from the gastrointestinal tract or in those with pancreatitis. Despite the merits of nasointestinal tube feeding with respect to the clinical outcomes, it is necessary to make a careful decision due to its high cost and difficulty in placement. Materials and Methods: Here, we retrospectively evaluated the patients who underwent follow-up examination at the nutrition outpatient clinic and other clinics between 01/01/2018 and 01/01/2019, we also evaluated and analyzed the overall effectiveness and problems associated with the use of the nasointestinal tube (NIT) for enteral nutrition. Results: In the study, 85 patients who underwent NIT insertion in the past 1 year were retrospectively examined. Among these, 41.1% (n = 37) patients were diagnosed with neurological diseases, 43.53% (n = 37) with internal diseases, and 15.3% (n = 13) with surgical diseases. NIT was placed in 8.23% (n = 7) of the patients due to the presence of fistula, in 31.8% (n = 27) for vomiting and high residual volume, in 7. 05% (n = 6) for pancreatitis, and in 52.9% (n = 45) for high aspiration risk. The NIT was placed in the jejunal region on the 1st day in 69.41% (n = 59) of patients, on the 2nd day in 11.76% (n = 10), and on the 3rd day in 9.41% (n = 8). Although the NIT was placed in the desired region in 90.58% of the patients, it was not placed in the desired region in 9.41% (n = 8) of the patients. This method could not be used effectively in the treatment plan, because 15.29% (n = 13) of the patients pulled the tube and the tube in 15.29% (n = 13) patients were clogged. In 60% of the patients, the method was used effectively during the planned period. Conclusion: Although the nasointestinal tube feeding method is an advantageous method to continue enteral nutrition, the success rates with respect to the placement are controversial. However, the knowledge and understanding of the placement method increases with the success of this method. The desired effective enteral nutrition can be ensured in cases where the indication for nasointestinal tube placement is accurate.
Alan : Sağlık Bilimleri
Dergi Türü : Uluslararası
Benzer Makaleler | Yazar | # |
---|
Makale | Yazar | # |
---|