• de AssisMichelli Cristina SilvaMCSHospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre., Andreia Barcellos Teixeira Macedo, Cláudia Hallal Alves Gazal, Célia Mariana Barbosa de Souza Martins, and Luciana Verçoza Viana.
• Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre.
• Nutr Hosp. 2019 Jul 1; 36 (3): 504-509.

IntroductionIntroduction: accidental dislodgement of enteral feeding tubes has been considered as an important quality indicator of the efficacy of enteral nutrition therapy. However, in clinical practice, the use of feeding tube attachment devices (FTADs), as an alternative to the traditional method of adhesive tape alone, has not yet been evaluated for its effectiveness in reducing inadvertent tube dislodgement. Objective: to evaluate the impact of using a dedicated FTAD compared with the traditional securing method with adhesive tape on the occurrence of accidental enteral feeding tube removal. Methods: a randomized clinical trial comparing two strategies for enteral feeding tube securement: use of traditional adhesive tape vs FTAD. The primary endpoint was the percentage of accidental enteral feeding tube dislodgement after randomization. Results: a total of 104 inpatients (mean age: 61.4 ± 17.5 years) were included (52 patients per group). Most were women with cerebrovascular disease (35.6%), diabetes (28.8%) and neoplasia (27.9%). There were 39 (37.5%) cases of accidental tube removal, 30.8% in the FTAD group and 44.2% in the adhesive tape group (p = 0.22). During follow-up, patients in the FTAD group received a mean of 60.0% of the volume of enteral nutrition prescribed, while patients in the adhesive tape group received 57.0% (p = 0.61). There was no difference in skin lesions between the groups. Conclusion: the strategy of using a dedicated FTAD as the method for securing enteral feeding tubes did not reduce the risk of accidental tube dislodgement compared with the traditional securing method with adhesive tape.

17 keywords...

hide…