The efficacy of feeding tubes: confirmation and loss.

Abstract

Around 5% of hospital patients require enteral tube feeding, yet its efficacy and costs are poorly understood. The authors examined radio-opacity, reason for repeat X-ray and overall cost in consecutive patients having tubes confirmed by X-ray when using polyvinylchloride (PVC) Ryles tubes versus CORFLO® (CORTRAK Medsystems) polyurethane tubes (PUTs); and confirmation method and reason for tube loss over an enteral episode. Despite higher PUT cost, because more Ryles tubes required re-X-ray ± radio-contrast injection (0% compared with 26%, p=0.029), overall cost was almost identical (Corflo: £54.2 vs Ryles: £54.6). Confirmation of tube position by X-ray remains more common than pH (51% compared with 45%) and tube loss is mostly as a result of inadvertent patient removal (54%). These studies show that: a) when using X-ray confirmation, PUTs and PVC Ryles tube cost is similar; b) despite pH being taught as first-line confirmation, X-ray remains the most common method therefore PUT use may further reduce cost when staff and outcome costs are included. In addition, more reliable and repeatable bedside confirmation methods are required; c) most tube loss is potentially preventable by use of nasal bridles. Larger studies are required to establish baseline data on problems and cost-effectiveness of enteral tube feeding before intervention trials.