|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Retrograde (Ascending) Bacterial Contamination of Enteral Diet Administration Systems
J. Jason Payne-James, FRCS
Departments of Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Central Middlesex Hospital, London, United Kingdom
S.K. Rana, PHD
Departments of Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Central Middlesex Hospital, London, United Kingdom
M.J. Bray, SRN
Departments of Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Central Middlesex Hospital, London, United Kingdom
David A. Mcswiggan, FRCPATH
Department of Microbiology and the Public Health Laboratory, Central Middlesex Hospital, London, United Kingdom
David B.A. Silk, FRCP
Departments of Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Central Middlesex Hospital, London, United Kingdom
A prospective clinical study in three phases was performed to determine whether it was possible that enteral diet containers could become contaminated as a result of endogenous organisms ascending retrogradely from the enteral feeding tube via the giving set, and if this did occur whether the incidence could be altered by modifying enteral delivery systems. Each phase observed patients on enteral feeding over a 48-hour study period (phase I, n = 18; phase II, n = 17; phase III, n = 18). Each patient was prescribed an enteral diet of 2 L/24 h administered by continuous pump infusion from a closed 1-L sterile diet container. Four containers were used for each patient, and one giving set was used in the 48-hour period. Diet samples were taken at 12-hour intervals: two from the giving set before and after flushing with residual diet, and one from the diet container. Phases differed only in the design of the giving set: phase I had no drip chamber, phase II had a drip chamber, phase III had a drip chamber and an anti-reflux ball valve at the distal end. Both phase I and III had greater numbers of giving set samples colonized at 24, 36, and 48 hours. In phase I, 3 of 14 sterile diet containers were colonized with >104 colony-forming organisms/mL of diet at 48 hours. Only phase II had no organisms contaminating the containers at 48 hours. We conclude that the retrograde spread of organisms from patient to sterile diet container does occur in clinical practice, and that a drip chamber in the giving set may prevent the problem. However, including a ball valve at the distal end of a giving set with a drip chamber negates this beneficial effect. These results have important implications when administering enteral nutrition to high-risk patient groups.(Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 16:369-373, 1992)
Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 16, No. 4,
369-373 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/0148607192016004369

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. N. Neely, T. Mayes, J. Gardner, R. J. Kagan, and M. M. Gottschlich
A Microbiologic Study of Enteral Feeding Hang Time in a Burn Hospital: Can Feeding Costs be Reduced Without Compromising Patient Safety?
Nutr Clin Pract,
December 1, 2006;
21(6):
610 - 616.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. M. H. Mathus-Vliegen, M. W. J. Bredius, and J. M. Binnekade
Analysis of Sites of Bacterial Contamination in an Enteral Feeding System
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr,
November 1, 2006;
30(6):
519 - 525.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M Stroud, H Duncan, and J Nightingale
Guidelines for enteral feeding in adult hospital patients
Gut,
December 1, 2003;
52(90007):
vii1 - 12.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C B Pearce and H D Duncan
Enteral feeding. Nasogastric, nasojejunal, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, or jejunostomy: its indications and limitations
Postgrad. Med. J.,
April 1, 2002;
78(918):
198 - 204.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. J. Herlick, C. Vogt, V. Pangman, and W. Fallis
Clinical Research: Comparison of Open Versus Closed Systems of Intermittent Enteral Feeding in Two Long-Term Care Facilities
Nutr Clin Pract,
December 1, 2000;
15(6):
287 - 298.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
V. W. Vanek
Closed versus Open Enteral Delivery Systems: A Quality Improvement Study
Nutr Clin Pract,
October 1, 2000;
15(5):
234 - 243.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Skipper
Closed Systems: Counterpoint
Nutr Clin Pract,
August 1, 2000;
15(4):
197 - 200.
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. M. Smarszcz, G. C. Proicou, and J. E. Dugle
Clinical Research: Microbial Contamination of Low-Profile Balloon Gastrostomy Extension Tubes and Three Cleaning Methods
Nutr Clin Pract,
June 1, 2000;
15(3):
138 - 142.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. E. Rupp, R. A. Weseman, N. Marion, and P. C. Iwen
Evaluation of Bacterial Contamination of a Sterile, Non-Air-Dependent Enteral Feeding System in Immunocompromised Patients
Nutr Clin Pract,
June 1, 1999;
14(3):
135 - 137.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. Kohn-Keeth, S. Shott, and K. Olree
The Effects of Rinsing Enteral Delivery Sets on Formula Contamination
Nutr Clin Pract,
December 1, 1996;
11(6):
269 - 273.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. R. Wagner, M. F. Elmore, and D. M. Knoll
Bacterial Contamination of Enteral Feeding Reservoirs
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr,
November 1, 1994;
18(6):
562 - 562.
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. Gottlieb, F. L. Iber, A. Livak, J. Leya, and S. Mobarhan
Oral Candida Colonizes the Stomach and Gastrostomy Feeding Tubes
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr,
May 1, 1994;
18(3):
264 - 267.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|
|