Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:00:40.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Formulation of enteral diets for use in jejunal enteral feeding

BAPEN Symposium 9: Choosing enteral feeds: evidence based or gut reaction?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2008

D. B. A. Silk*
Affiliation:
Department of Academic Surgery, Imperial College, London, St Mary's Campus, St Mary's Hospital, London W2 INY, UK
*
Corresponding author: Professor D. B. A. Silk, fax +44 20 8453 2538, email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nasogastric enteral feeding is not tolerated in patients with gastric atony and in many critically-ill patients in whom gastric emptying may be delayed and in whom gastro-oesophageal regurgitation may lead to pulmonary aspiration of enteral feed and the development of pneumonia. Initial attempts to overcome these problems led to the development of post pyloric enteral feeding techniques with the infusion port of the tubes positioned in the duodenum. In many centres this technique is still the most practised post-pyloric enteral feeding technique. Nasoduodenal feeding tubes often retroperistalse into the stomach. The technique of choice, therefore, in these difficult patients is to position the infusion port of the feeding tube well distal to the ligament of trietz (post ligament of trietz nasojejunal enteral tube feeding). While nasogastric and nasoduodenal enteral feeding techniques have been shown to elicit a stimulatory exocrine pancreatic response, distal jejunal enteral feeding does not. During this mode of feeding the ileal brake is activated and pancreatic exocrine pancreatic secretion inhibited by the action of the released peptide YY and glucagon-like peptide-1 hormones, in turn the inhibition of pancreatic secretion being the result of inhibition of trypsin secretion. In the light of the findings showing the absence of a stimulatory pancreatic exocrine response to nasojejunal enteral feeding these patients should receive a predigested rather than a polymeric enteral diet.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2008

In patients requiring nutritional support who have a normally- or near-normally-functioning gastrointestinal tract enteral nutrition is preferred to parenteral nutrition(Reference Silk, Payne-James, Grimble and Silk1). Parenteral nutrition may often be associated with increased complications and, in critically-ill patients, an increased mortality(Reference Heyland, MacDonald, Keefe and Drover2).

Enteral nutrition is not, however, without problems in some patients. Problems occur, for example, in patients with gastric atony (Table 1) receiving nasogastric feeding. Gastro-oesophageal regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of the diet is a common complication of nasogastric feeding in patients who are critically ill and ventilated, leading to the development of pneumonia(Reference Heyland, Drover, Macdonald, Novak and Lam3, Reference Heyland, Dhaliwal, Drovere, Gramlich and Dodek4). This route of feeding is poorly tolerated in patients with neuromuscular disorders of the gut(Reference Silk5).

Table 1. Patient groups and diseases associated with gastric atony

The categorisation of intragastric enteral-feeding complications has pointed clinicians to developing techniques of post-pyloric enteral feeding(Reference Rees, Payne-James, King and Silk6). One of the most common problems with this technique, apart from difficulties of tube placement(Reference Payne-James, Payne-James, Grimble and Silk7), has been that only approximately one-third of positioned tubes remain in situ for the full course of nasoduodenal feeding; the remainder being either inadvertently removed or recoiling back into the stomach as a consequence of retroperistalsis(Reference Rees, Payne-James, King and Silk6). Most recently, therefore, techniques of nasojejunal tube feeding have been developed to overcome these problems and the indications for jejunal enteral feeding defined (Table 2). Long, usually single-lumen, feeding tubes are sited using standard upper gastrointestinal endoscopy-assisted techniques; radiologically using newly-developed guide wires (the author's preferred method of tube placement) or with the assistance of a newly-developed nasoendoscopic technique(Reference O'Keefe, Foody and Gill8). In some patients who go on to require longer-term jejunal feeding nasojejunal tubes can be replaced by directly-sited jejunal tubes, e.g. a needle-catheter jejunostomy tube sited at mini laparotomy or a percutaneously endoscopically-sited tube(Reference Payne-James, Payne-James, Grimble and Silk7). One of the issues that arises when considering nasojenunal and other techniques of jejunal enteral nutrition is what type of enteral diet should be employed, i.e. polymeric or predigested? Clearly, the answer to this question will be dependent on what influence intra-jejunally-administered enteral nutrition will have on the pancreatic secretory response. The present article examines this evidence.

Table 2. Indication for jejunal enteral feeding

Food-induced pancreatic secretion

The stimulatory effect of feeding on pancreatic exocrine function has been divided into three phases: the cephalic phase; the gastric phase; the intestinal phase. Following the cephalic phase there is strong vagal stimulation when food enters the mouth, is chewed and swallowed, and further vagal stimulation when food enters the stomach. The movement of food plus gastric secretions through the pylorus into the duodenum results in the maximal stimulation of pancreatic secretion mediated by humoral secretion of cholecystokinin and secretin; the combined stimulation being fortified by cholinergic excitation(Reference O'Keefe9).

Enteral feeding-stimulated pancreatic secretin

The stimulatory effect of polymeric and ‘elemental’ enteral diets on pancreatic secretion has been examined with diets either being administered orally or infused at the site of the ampulla of Vater with intestinal contents being aspirated 200 mm distally(Reference O'Keefe, Lee, Anderson, Gennings, Abou-Assi, Clore, Heuman and Chey10). The secretory response to oral ingestion of the polymeric diet was found to be similar to that of the infused diet. However, pancreatic secretion was found to be reduced by 50% in response to ingestion of a predigested elemental diet (l-amino acid N source, 6% energy only derived from fat). It is clear from these basic physiological studies that patients receiving post-pyloric intraduodenal feeding should receive a polymeric enteral diet, the pancreatic secretory response being entirely adequate to result in assimilation of nutrients from the diet.

Inhibition of pancreatic secretion

In 1984 two research groups (one of which was the author's group) independently described an important humorally-mediated braking mechanism whereby jejunal transit and motility is inhibited by the infusion of nutrients in the terminal ileum(Reference Spiller, Trotman, Higgins, Ghatei, Grimble, Lee, Bloom, Misiewicz and Silk11, Reference Read, McFarlane and Kinsman12). This mechanism was termed the ‘ileal brake’ and the hormones enteroglucagon, neurotensin and peptide YY were thought to mediate the braking effects. Later studies have also implicated glucagon-like peptide-1(Reference Van Citters and Lin13). Importantly, later studies of the ileal brake have shown that stimulated pancreatic secretion can be inhibited by the infusion of unabsorbed nutrients into the ileum(Reference Keller, Runzi, Goebell and Layer14, Reference Layer and Host15) and that the inhibitory action is mediated via the release of peptide YY and glucagon-like peptide-1(Reference Wen, Phillips, Sarr, Kost and Holst16). These very important studies led to an investigation of the effect of the site of jejunal feeding on stimulated pancreatic secretion(Reference Vu, van der Veek, Frolich, Souverijn, Biemond, Lamers and Masclee17). Normal subjects received a polymeric enteral diet infused either at the ligament of trietz (proximal jejunum) or 600 mm distally (mid jejunum). Proximal jejunal feeding was found to provide a strong stimulus for lipase, trypsin, amylase and bilirubin secretions. In contrast, feeding at 600 mm down the jejunum was found to have no significant effects on basal secretion rates(Reference Wen, Phillips, Sarr, Kost and Holst16). Subsequently, it has been confirmed in healthy volunteers that there is no significant pancreatic secretory response to the infusion of a predigested diet at distances of 400–1200 mm from the ligament of trietz(Reference Kaushik, Pietraszewski, Hoist and O'Keefe18). This lack of stimulatory exocrine pancreatic response has been shown to occur in association with elevated peptide YY and glucagon-like peptide-1 responses(Reference Kaushik, Pietraszewski, Hoist and O'Keefe18), indicating that the ileal brake is activated during intra-jejunal nutrient infusion. The same research group has developed a technique for measuring trypsin synthetic rates(Reference O'Keefe, Lee, Li, Zhou, Stoll and Dang19) and using this technique have shown that inhibition of pancreatic secretion is the result of inhibition of trypsin synthesis(Reference Zhou, Kiswardy and Kaushik20).

Predigested and polymeric diets during jejunal enteral feeding

For the reasons discussed, post-pyloric duodenal feeding techniques are not the optimum means of overcoming the problems of complications that occur with intragastric enteral nutrition. Properly-sited access beyond the ligament of trietz is the way forward in those difficult cases; certainly, initially and in the short term nasojejunal enteral-tube feeding is the technique of choice. In patients with normal small intestinal motility nasojejunal tubes, once they are correctly positioned, will be moved in a caudad direction by the phase III migrating motor complex(Reference Silk, Payne-James, Grimble and Silk1). It must be assumed therefore that in most patients the diet will be infused approximately 300–400 mm distal to the ligament of trietz. Infusion of polymeric diet at this site will activate the ileal brake, causing release of peptide YY and glucagon-like peptide-1. In turn this response will result in an inhibition of exocrine pancreatic enzyme synthesis and secretion, which is likely to have a most deleterious effect on the digestion and absorption of nutrients from the polymeric diet. Although the evidence points to the fact that the intrajejunal infusion of predigested diets also fails to elicit a pancreatic exocrine secretory response(Reference Kaushik, Pietraszewski, Hoist and O'Keefe18), near optimum absorption of nutrients can occur from suitably-formulated diets in the absence of pancreatic enzymes(Reference Silk, Payne-James, Grimble and Silk1).

On the basis of the evidence discussed it is concluded that properly-formulated predigested enteral feeds are the diets of choice for patients undergoing post-ligament of trietz intrajejunal enteral feeding.

Acknowledgements

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

1.Silk, DBA (2001) Enteral diets: clinical uses and formulation. In Artificial Nutrition Support in Clinical Practice, pp. 303331 [Payne-James, J, Grimble, G and Silk, DBA editors]. London: Greenwich Medical Media Ltd.Google Scholar
2.Heyland, DK, MacDonald, S, Keefe, L & Drover, JW (l998) Total parenteral nutrition in the critically ill patient. A meta-analysis. JAMA 280, 20132019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Heyland, DK, Drover, JW, Macdonald, S, Novak, F & Lam, M (2001) Effect of postpyloric feeding on gastro-oesophageal regurgitation and pulmonary micro-aspiration. Results of a randomised clinical trial. Crit Care Med 29, 1495l501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Heyland, DK, Dhaliwal, R, Drovere, JW, Gramlich, L & Dodek, P (2003) Canadian clinical practice guidelines for nutritional support in mechanically ventilated critically ill adult patients. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 27, 355373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Silk, DBA (2004) Chronic idiopathic intestinal pseudo-obstruction: the need for a multidisciplinary approach to management. Proc Nut Soc 63, 473480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Rees, RGP, Payne-James, JJ, King, C & Silk, DBA (1988) Spontaneous transpyloric passage and performance of ‘fine bore’ polyurethane feeding tube: A controlled clinic trial. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 12, 469472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Payne-James, J (2001) Enteral nutrition: tubes and techniques of delivery. In Artificial Nutrition Support in Clinical Practice, pp. 281302 [Payne-James, J, Grimble, G and Silk, DBA editors]. London: Greenwich Medical Media Ltd.Google Scholar
8.O'Keefe, SJ, Foody, W & Gill, S (2003) Transnasal endoscopic placement of feeding tubes in the intensive care unit. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 27, 349354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.O'Keefe, SJD (2006) Physiological response of the human pancreas to enteral and parenteral feeding. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 9, 622628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.O'Keefe, SJ, Lee, RB, Anderson, FP, Gennings, C, Abou-Assi, S, Clore, J, Heuman, D & Chey, W (2003) Physiological effects of enteral and parenteral feeding on pancreaticobiliary secretion in humans. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 284, G27G38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Spiller, RC, Trotman, LF, Higgins, BE, Ghatei, MA, Grimble, GK, Lee, YC, Bloom, SR, Misiewicz, JJ & Silk, DB (1984) The ileal brake – inhibition of jejunal motility after ileal fat perfusion in man. Gut 25, 365374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Read, NW, McFarlane, A, Kinsman, RI et al. (1984) Effect of infusion of nutrient solutions into the ileum on gastrointestinal transit and plasma levels of neurotensin and enteroglucagon. Gastroenterology 86, 274280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Van Citters, GW & Lin, HC (1999) The ileal brake: A fifteen-year progress report. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 1, 404409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Keller, J, Runzi, M, Goebell, H & Layer, P (1997) Duodenal and ileal nutrient deliveries regulate human intestinal motor and pancreatic responses to a meal. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 272, G632G637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Layer, P & Host, JJ (1997) GLP1: a humoral mediator of the ileal brake in humans? Int J Pancreatol 22, 2329.Google Scholar
16.Wen, J, Phillips, SF, Sarr, MG, Kost, LJ & Holst, JJ (1995) PYY and GLP-1 contribute to feedback inhibition from the canine ileum and colon. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 269, G945G952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Vu, MK, van der Veek, P, Frolich, M, Souverijn, JH, Biemond, I, Lamers, CB & Masclee, AA (1999) Does jejunal feeding activate exocrine pancreatic secretion? Eur J Clin Invest 29, 10531059.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Kaushik, N, Pietraszewski, M, Hoist, JJ & O'Keefe, SJ (2005) Enteral feeding without pancreatic stimulation. Pancreas 31, 353359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.O'Keefe, SJ, Lee, RB, Li, J, Zhou, W, Stoll, B & Dang, Q (2006) Trypsin and splanchnic protein turnover during feeding and fasting in human subjects. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 290, G213G221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Zhou, W, Kiswardy, J, Kaushik, N et al. (2006) The effect of distal jejunal feeding on in vivo trypsin synthesis and turnover. Gastroenterology 130, Suppl. 2, A-611.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Patient groups and diseases associated with gastric atony

Figure 1

Table 2. Indication for jejunal enteral feeding