Objectives: To maintain adequate nutrition for patients who are in need, enteral feeding via nasogastric tube (NGT) is necessary. Although the literature suggests the safety of continued NGT feeding at a gastric residual volume of <400 mL, inconsistencies in withholding tube feeding based on residual volume have been observed in clinical practice. We performed a regional survey to determine the range of current practice among nursing staff regarding the decision to withhold NGT feeding based on residual volume and the factors that influence the decision-making process.
Methods: A questionnaire was designed to evaluate nursing practice patterns regarding the decision of withholding NGT feeding based on a certain residual volume, which was distributed to the nursing staff at all major hospitals in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area. Statistical analysis was done with the Fisher exact test. All of the statistical tests were carried out at α = 0.05.
Results: A total of 582 nurses completed the survey. Residual volumes (milliliters) resulting in the termination of NGT feeding occurred in 89% of nurses at volumes <300 mL and only 3% of nurses at volumes >400 mL. Three main reasons for nurses to withhold NGT feeding were risk of aspiration (90%), potential feeding intolerance (81%), and risk of regurgitation (67%). Other less common concerns were abdominal distension and abdominal discomfort.
Conclusions: The decision of withholding NGT feeding varied among the nursing staff that were surveyed. A consensus is necessary for the standardization of withholding NGT feeding in clinical practice among nursing staff.
1. McClave SA, Snider HL, Lowen CC, et al. Use of residual volume as a marker for enteral feeding intolerance: prospective blinded comparison with physical examination and radiographic findings. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1992; 16: 99–105.
2. Parker P, Stroop S, Greene H. A controlled comparison of continuous vs intermittent feeding in the treatment of infants with intestinal disease. J Pediatr 1981; 99: 360–364.
3. McClave SA, Martindale RG, Vanek VW, et al. Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2009; 37: 277–316.
4. Lukan JK, McClave SA, Stefater AJ, et al. Poor validity of residual volumes as a marker for risk of aspiration. Am J Clin Nutr 2002; 75: 417S–418S.
5. Bistrian BR, Blackburn BL, Vitale J, et al. Prevalence of malnutrition in general medical patients. JAMA 1976; 235: 1567–1570.
6. Scrimshaw NS, Taylor CE, Gordon JE. Interactions of nutrition and infection. WHO Chron 1969; 23: 2369–2374.
7. Newmark SR, Koelzer C, McCown MH. Current concepts in nutrition: enteral tube feeding. J Okla State Med Assoc 1987; 80: 163–165.
8. Edwards SJ, Metheny NA. Measurement of gastric residual volume: state of the science. Medsurg Nurs 2000; 9: 125–128.
9. Lin HC, Van Citters GW. Stopping enteral feeding for arbitrary gastric residual volume may not be physiologically sound: results of a computer simulation model. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1997; 21: 286–289.
10. Hurt RT, McClave SA. Gastric residual volumes in critical illness: what do they really mean? Crit Care Clin 2010; 26: 481–490.
11. Powell KS, Marcuard SP, Farrior ES, et al. Aspirating gastric residuals causes occlusion of small bore feeding tubes. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1993; 17: 243–246.
12. Bourgault AM, Ipe L, Weaver J, et al. Development of evidence-based guidelines and critical care nurses’ knowledge of enteral feeding. Crit Care Nurs 2007; 27: 17–29.
13. Metheny NA, Stewart J, Nuetzel G, et al. Effects of feeding-tube properties on residual volume measurement in tube-fed patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2005; 29: 192–197.
14. Blankhead R, Boullata J, Brantley S, et al. Enteral nutrition practice recommendations. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2009; 33: 165–167.
15. Bollineni D, Minocha A. Nursing practice of checking gastric residual volumes based on old dogmas: opportunity to improve patient care while decreasing health care costs. J La State Med Soc 2011; 163: 205–209.
16. Makic MB, VonRueden KT, Rauen CA, et al. Evidence-based practice habits: putting more sacred cows out to pasture. Crit Care Nurs 2011; 31: 38–62.