Comparison of Gravity Flow Rates Between ENFit and Legacy Feeding Tubes

Manpreet S. Mundi, Wanda Duellman, Lisa Epp, Jacob Davidson, Ryan T Hurt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Misconnections between enteral supplies and other access devices have led to significant morbidity and mortality. To reduce misconnections, a standard small-bore connector has been developed (International Organization for Standards 80369-8; ENFit). The full impact of transition to this connector is not known, however. Method: Working with major manufacturers and Food and Drug Administration, we obtained ENFit and comparative legacy tubes of variable sizes (low-profile, 14F, 18F, 20F, and 24F balloon gastrostomies). Gravity enteral feeding was simulated with an empty bolus syringe attached to the feeding tube to be tested. The tube was clamped and filled to the 60-mL mark with liquid (water, Jevity 1 Cal, Isosource HN, Isosource 1.5 Cal, Two Cal HN, and Nourish). The clamp was released, and time for formula to leave the syringe was recorded. Results: There was no difference in flow rate between the aggregate legacy and ENFit tubes for the low-profile, 18F, and 20F sizes. The ENFit 14F tubes had a lower flow rate vs the legacy tubes, largely due to the low flow rates seen with the 1 ENFit tube. Similarly, 24F ENFit tubes with some formulas yielded lower flow rates as opposed to legacy. Conclusion: Overall, for the low-profile, 18F, and 20F sizes, the ENFit tubes had similar flow rates when compared with the legacy tubes. For the 14F and 24F sizes, the flow rate of ENFit tubes was significantly lower, which could result in longer EN delivery for patients who are using these tubes to provide gravity feeding.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)522-528
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
Volume42
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2018

Fingerprint

Syringes
Gravitation
Enteral Nutrition
Gastrostomy
United States Food and Drug Administration
Small Intestine
Organizations
Morbidity
Equipment and Supplies
Mortality
Water

Keywords

  • enteral nutrition
  • long-term care
  • nutrition
  • nutrition support practice
  • nutrition support teams

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Nutrition and Dietetics

Cite this

Comparison of Gravity Flow Rates Between ENFit and Legacy Feeding Tubes. / Mundi, Manpreet S.; Duellman, Wanda; Epp, Lisa; Davidson, Jacob; Hurt, Ryan T.

In: Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 42, No. 3, 01.03.2018, p. 522-528.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mundi, Manpreet S. ; Duellman, Wanda ; Epp, Lisa ; Davidson, Jacob ; Hurt, Ryan T. / Comparison of Gravity Flow Rates Between ENFit and Legacy Feeding Tubes. In: Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2018 ; Vol. 42, No. 3. pp. 522-528.
@article{b48558242452484c94a441823d8da5f2,
title = "Comparison of Gravity Flow Rates Between ENFit and Legacy Feeding Tubes",
abstract = "Background: Misconnections between enteral supplies and other access devices have led to significant morbidity and mortality. To reduce misconnections, a standard small-bore connector has been developed (International Organization for Standards 80369-8; ENFit). The full impact of transition to this connector is not known, however. Method: Working with major manufacturers and Food and Drug Administration, we obtained ENFit and comparative legacy tubes of variable sizes (low-profile, 14F, 18F, 20F, and 24F balloon gastrostomies). Gravity enteral feeding was simulated with an empty bolus syringe attached to the feeding tube to be tested. The tube was clamped and filled to the 60-mL mark with liquid (water, Jevity 1 Cal, Isosource HN, Isosource 1.5 Cal, Two Cal HN, and Nourish). The clamp was released, and time for formula to leave the syringe was recorded. Results: There was no difference in flow rate between the aggregate legacy and ENFit tubes for the low-profile, 18F, and 20F sizes. The ENFit 14F tubes had a lower flow rate vs the legacy tubes, largely due to the low flow rates seen with the 1 ENFit tube. Similarly, 24F ENFit tubes with some formulas yielded lower flow rates as opposed to legacy. Conclusion: Overall, for the low-profile, 18F, and 20F sizes, the ENFit tubes had similar flow rates when compared with the legacy tubes. For the 14F and 24F sizes, the flow rate of ENFit tubes was significantly lower, which could result in longer EN delivery for patients who are using these tubes to provide gravity feeding.",
keywords = "enteral nutrition, long-term care, nutrition, nutrition support practice, nutrition support teams",
author = "Mundi, {Manpreet S.} and Wanda Duellman and Lisa Epp and Jacob Davidson and Hurt, {Ryan T}",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0148607117703959",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "522--528",
journal = "Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition",
issn = "0148-6071",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Gravity Flow Rates Between ENFit and Legacy Feeding Tubes

AU - Mundi, Manpreet S.

AU - Duellman, Wanda

AU - Epp, Lisa

AU - Davidson, Jacob

AU - Hurt, Ryan T

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - Background: Misconnections between enteral supplies and other access devices have led to significant morbidity and mortality. To reduce misconnections, a standard small-bore connector has been developed (International Organization for Standards 80369-8; ENFit). The full impact of transition to this connector is not known, however. Method: Working with major manufacturers and Food and Drug Administration, we obtained ENFit and comparative legacy tubes of variable sizes (low-profile, 14F, 18F, 20F, and 24F balloon gastrostomies). Gravity enteral feeding was simulated with an empty bolus syringe attached to the feeding tube to be tested. The tube was clamped and filled to the 60-mL mark with liquid (water, Jevity 1 Cal, Isosource HN, Isosource 1.5 Cal, Two Cal HN, and Nourish). The clamp was released, and time for formula to leave the syringe was recorded. Results: There was no difference in flow rate between the aggregate legacy and ENFit tubes for the low-profile, 18F, and 20F sizes. The ENFit 14F tubes had a lower flow rate vs the legacy tubes, largely due to the low flow rates seen with the 1 ENFit tube. Similarly, 24F ENFit tubes with some formulas yielded lower flow rates as opposed to legacy. Conclusion: Overall, for the low-profile, 18F, and 20F sizes, the ENFit tubes had similar flow rates when compared with the legacy tubes. For the 14F and 24F sizes, the flow rate of ENFit tubes was significantly lower, which could result in longer EN delivery for patients who are using these tubes to provide gravity feeding.

AB - Background: Misconnections between enteral supplies and other access devices have led to significant morbidity and mortality. To reduce misconnections, a standard small-bore connector has been developed (International Organization for Standards 80369-8; ENFit). The full impact of transition to this connector is not known, however. Method: Working with major manufacturers and Food and Drug Administration, we obtained ENFit and comparative legacy tubes of variable sizes (low-profile, 14F, 18F, 20F, and 24F balloon gastrostomies). Gravity enteral feeding was simulated with an empty bolus syringe attached to the feeding tube to be tested. The tube was clamped and filled to the 60-mL mark with liquid (water, Jevity 1 Cal, Isosource HN, Isosource 1.5 Cal, Two Cal HN, and Nourish). The clamp was released, and time for formula to leave the syringe was recorded. Results: There was no difference in flow rate between the aggregate legacy and ENFit tubes for the low-profile, 18F, and 20F sizes. The ENFit 14F tubes had a lower flow rate vs the legacy tubes, largely due to the low flow rates seen with the 1 ENFit tube. Similarly, 24F ENFit tubes with some formulas yielded lower flow rates as opposed to legacy. Conclusion: Overall, for the low-profile, 18F, and 20F sizes, the ENFit tubes had similar flow rates when compared with the legacy tubes. For the 14F and 24F sizes, the flow rate of ENFit tubes was significantly lower, which could result in longer EN delivery for patients who are using these tubes to provide gravity feeding.

KW - enteral nutrition

KW - long-term care

KW - nutrition

KW - nutrition support practice

KW - nutrition support teams

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044053803&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044053803&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0148607117703959

DO - 10.1177/0148607117703959

M3 - Article

C2 - 28406738

AN - SCOPUS:85044053803

VL - 42

SP - 522

EP - 528

JO - Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition

JF - Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition

SN - 0148-6071

IS - 3

ER -