This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Wagner, D. R. Articles by Knoll, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wagner, D. R. Articles by Knoll, D. M. Pubmed/NCBI databases Substance via MeSH Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Evaluation of "Closed" vs "Open" Systems for the Delivery of Peptide-Based Enteral Diets

Indianapolis Gastroenterology Research Foundation

Michael F. Elmore, MD

Indianapolis Gastroenterology Research Foundation

Donna M. Knoll, MS, RD, CNSD

Saint Francis Hospital Center, Beech Grove, Indiana

Background: The study was designed to quantitate factors such as preparation time, waste, and contamination associated with three different feeding systems for peptide-based diets, and to determine appropriate hang times. Methods: Intensive care unit patients were randomized to receive a peptide-based diet in 1500-mL prefilled, sterile closed-system containers (CS) infused more than 24 hours, as open systems decanted from cans (OS-Can), or as open systems mixed from powder (OS-Powder). Open-system groups were provided a 12-hour supply twice daily in commercially clean 1-L bags with preattached sets. Samples were taken for culture during preparation and after infusion. Preparation time, initial and final microbial concentrations, and total waste were quantified. Results: Preparation time was significantly shorter for CS than for OS-Can or for OS-Powder (2 minutes vs 7.5 minutes vs 13.0 minutes). Initially, 100% of the OS-Powder and 30% of the OS-Can bags were contaminated, with significant contamination exceeding 10⁴ colony-forming units/mL in 40% and in 5% of the bags, respectively. On final culture, significant contamination occurred in only 2% of the CS bags compared with 83% of the OS-Powder and 60% of the OS-Can bags. Average time from potential initial contamination to final culture in CS was 49.9 hours vs 38.8 hours for OS-Can and 32 hours for OS-Powder. Total waste was greater in CS than in OS-Can or OS-Powder but could be eliminated by extending allowable hang times. Conclusions: Nonvented closed-delivery containers may be safely infused for up to 48 hours. They are associated with reduced labor and contamination. (Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 18:453-457, 1994)

Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 18, No. 5, 453-457 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0148607194018005453


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]

				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]

				H. M. Storm Closed-System Enteral Feedings: Point-Counterpoint: Closed Systems: Point Nutr Clin Pract, August 1, 2000; 15(4): 193 - 197. [PDF]

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

				M. Silkroski, F. Allen, and H. Storm Tube Feeding Audit Reveals Hidden Costs and Risks of Current Practice Nutr Clin Pract, December 1, 1998; 13(6): 283 - 290. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Silkroski and M. Ericson Enteral Nutrition Challenges in Home Case Nutr Clin Pract, August 1, 1998; 13(4): 163 - 166. [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]