Comprehensive Review of Tube Feeding in Clinical Practice: Indications, Methods, Complications, and Innovations
anwar-almshwah@hotmail.com ,
Abstract: When patients with fully functioning gastrointestinal tracts are unable to satisfy their nutritional requirements orally, tube feeding, also known as enteral nutrition (EN), becomes an essential intervention. The indications, kinds of tubes, insertion procedures, formula choices, problems, monitoring protocols, ethics, and new technology related to tube feeding are all thoroughly covered in this study. To aid in clinical decision-making, suggestions based on evidence are provided with comparison tables.
Keywords: Enteral nutrition, nasogastric tube, PEG, complications, monitoring, ethical considerations, emerging technologies
INTRODUCTION
For patients who have trouble swallowing, are very sick, or have neurological problems, tube feeding is an essential part of nutritional therapy. Despite its popularity, a methodical approach is required due to differences in clinical practice and potential problems. To improve health outcomes for patients, this updated assessment takes into account recent developments in technology, ethical discussions, and standard practices.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature review using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE (2010–2023). Search terms included:
· Enteral nutrition
· Tube feeding complications
· PEG vs. NG tube
· Ethics of artificial nutrition
Inclusion criteria: Randomized trials, meta-analyses, and clinical guidelines.
Exclusion criteria: Case reports, non-English studies.
TYPES OF TUBE FEEDING
Short-Term Feeding Tubes
· Nasogastric (NG) Tube: Most common, suitable for <4 weeks
· Nasojejunal (NJ) Tube: Preferred in gastroparesis or high aspiration risk
Long-Term Feeding Tubes
· Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG): Gold standard for >4 weeks.
· Radiologically Inserted Gastrostomy (RIG): Alternative when endoscopy fails.
· Jejunostomy (JEJ) Tube: For gastric outlet obstruction or severe reflux.
Table 1: Comparison of Feeding Tube Types
Type |
Duration |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
Best For |
Nasogastric (NG) |
Short-term |
Quick insertion, low cost |
Discomfort, dislodgement risk |
ICU, short-term dysphagia |
Nasojejunal (NJ) |
Short-term |
Reduces aspiration |
Requires endoscopic placement |
Pancreatitis, gastroparesis |
PEG |
Long-term |
Better comfort, lower occlusion |
Infection risk (peristomal) |
Stroke, neurodegenerative diseases |
Jejunostomy (JEJ) |
Long-term |
Bypasses stomach |
Higher complication rate |
Gastric cancer, severe GERD |
INDICATIONS AND PATIENT SELECTION
Absolute Indications
· Dysphagia (stroke, ALS)
· Mechanical obstruction (esophageal cancer)
· Severe malnutrition (anorexia, Crohn’s disease)
Relative Indications
· Critical illness (ventilated patients)
· Preoperative optimization (major surgery)
Table 2: Patient Selection Criteria
Factor |
Favorable for Tube Feeding |
Unfavorable for Tube Feeding |
GI function |
Intact |
Ileus, bowel obstruction |
Prognosis |
>3-month survival |
Terminal illness (e.g., late-stage dementia) |
Patient/caregiver consent |
Informed agreement |
Refusal or ethical concerns |
FORMULA SELECTION
Standard Polymeric Formulas
· Intact nutrients, for patients with normal digestion.
Disease-Specific Formulas
· High-protein (trauma, burns)
· Renal/low-electrolyte (CKD)
· Diabetic(low-carbohydrate)
Table 3: Enteral Formula Comparison
Formula Type |
Caloric Density |
Protein Content |
Clinical Use |
Standard (1.0 kcal/mL) |
1.0 kcal/mL |
40–60 g/L |
General use |
High-protein (1.5 kcal/mL) |
1.5 kcal/mL |
70–90 g/L |
Critical illness, wounds |
Peptide-based |
1.0–1.2 kcal/mL |
50–70 g/L |
Malabsorption, pancreatitis |
COMPLICATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
Table 4: Complications of Tube Feeding
Complication |
Incidence |
Prevention |
Treatment |
Aspiration pneumonia |
10–30% |
Elevate HOB, check residuals |
Antibiotics, NPO if severe |
Tube occlusion |
5–15% |
Flush q4–6h, avoid thick formulas |
Enzymatic declogging (e.g., Coca-Cola) |
PEG site infection |
10–20% |
Sterile technique, prophylactic ABx |
Topical/oral antibiotics |
Refractory diarrhea |
15–25% |
Slow infusion, fiber supplementation |
Rule out C. difficile |
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
· Autonomy: Advance directives and surrogate decision-making.
· Futility: When tube feeding may not improve quality of life (e.g., end-stage dementia).
· Cultural/Religious Views: Variations in acceptance (e.g., fasting in terminal illness).
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
· Smart feeding pumps: Auto-regulate rate based on gastric residuals.
· 3D-printed tubes: Custom-fit to reduce leakage.
· Microbiome-modulating formulas: For gut barrier protection in sepsis.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
· Optimal timing of PEG in stroke patients.
· Personalized formulas based on metabolomics.
· AI-driven monitoring for early complication detection.
CONCLUSION
Although it saves lives, tube feeding is a complicated technique that requires tailored solutions. The way things are done in the future will be determined by how technology and ethical systems evolve.