4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Inhibition of Gastroesophageal Reflux by Semi-solid Nutrients in Patients With Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy

Journal

JOURNAL OF PARENTERAL AND ENTERAL NUTRITION
Volume 33, Issue 5, Pages 513-519

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/0148607108327045

Keywords

percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; gastroesophageal reflux; semi-solid nutrients; gastric emptying; intragastric distribution

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Aspiration is one of the major complications after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). The administration of semi-solid nutrients by means of gastrostomy tube has recently been reported to be effective in preventing aspiration pneumonia. The effects of semi-solid nutrients on gastroesophageal reflux, intragastric distribution, and gastric emptying were evaluated. Methods: Semi-solid nutrients were prepared by liquid nutrients mixed with agar at the concentration of 0.5%. The distribution of the administered radiolabeled liquid and semisolid nutrients was monitored by a scintillation camera for 15 post-PEG patients. The percentage of esophageal reflux, the distribution of the proximal and distal stomach, and the gastric emptying time were evaluated. Results: The percentage of gastroesophageal reflux was significantly decreased in semi-solid nutrients (0.82 +/- 1.27%) compared with liquid nutrients (3.75 +/- 4.25%), whereas the gastric emptying time was not different. The distribution of semi-solid nutrients was not different from liquid nutrients in the early phase, whereas higher retention of liquid nutrients in the proximal stomach was observed in the late phase. Conclusions: Gastroesophageal reflux was significantly inhibited by semi-solid nutrients. One of the mechanisms of the inhibition is considered to be an improvement in the transition from the proximal to distal stomach in semi-solid nutrients. (JPEN J Parenter Enternal Nutr. 2009;33:5 13-519)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available