A clinical consensus paper on jejunal tube feeding in children.

BACKGROUND: Feeding problems are common in children with complex medical problems or acute critical illness and enteral nutrition may be required. In certain situations, gastric tube feeding is poorly tolerated or may not be feasible. When feed intolerance persists despite appropriate adjustments to oral and gastric enteral regimens, jejunal tube feeding can be considered as an option for nutrition support. METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert working group of the Australasian Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition was convened. They identified topic questions and five key areas of jejunal tube feeding in children. Literatures searches were undertaken on Pubmed, Embase, and Medline for all relevant studies, between January 2000 and September 2022 (n = 103). Studies were assessed using National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines to generate statements, which were discussed as a group, followed by voting on statements using a modified Delphi process to determine consensus. RESULTS: A total of 24 consensus statements were created for five key areas: patient selection, type and selection of feeding tube, complications, clinical use of jejunal tubes, follow-up, and reassessment. CONCLUSION: Jejunal tube feeding is a safe and effective means of providing nutrition in a select group of pediatric patients with complex medical needs, who are unable to be fed by gastric tube feeding. Appropriate patient selection is important as complications associated with jejunal tube feeding are not uncommon, and although mostly minor, can be significant or require tube reinsertion. All children receiving jejunal tube feeding should have multidisciplinary team assessment and follow-up.

Exclusive enteral nutrition: An optimal care pathway for use in children with active luminal Crohn's disease.

AIM: Exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) is recommended as a first-line therapy for active luminal paediatric Crohn's disease, by many contemporary consensus guidelines. However, EEN protocols vary internationally. A key enabler for the use of EEN therapy has been identified as the standardisation of protocols. The aim of this study was to develop an optimal care pathway for use of EEN in children with active luminal Crohn's disease. METHODS: A working group of 11 paediatric gastroenterology dietitians and one paediatric gastroenterologist from Australia and New Zealand was convened to develop a standard optimal care pathway. Seven key areas were identified; clinical indications, workup assessments, EEN prescription, monitoring, food reintroduction, partial enteral nutrition and maintenance enteral nutrition. Recent literature was reviewed, assessed according to the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines, and consensus statements were developed and voted on. Consensus opinion was used where literature gaps existed. RESULTS: A total of nineteen consensus statements from the seven key areas were agreed upon. The consensus statements informed the optimal care pathway for children with active luminal undertaking EEN in Australia and New Zealand. CONCLUSION: This study developed an EEN optimal care pathway to facilitate standardisation of clinical care for children with active luminal Crohn's disease, and hopefully improve clinical outcomes and identify areas for future research.

Exclusive enteral nutrition in children and adolescents with Crohn disease: Dietitian perspectives and practice.

AIM: In newly diagnosed paediatric Crohn disease, exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) is recommended as a first-line treatment for remission induction. However, EEN protocols vary internationally. The development of best practice protocols may make it easier to make definitive conclusions about optimal EEN therapy, and may improve patient outcomes. This study aims to determine the variations in current dietitian EEN practice within Australia and New Zealand (NZ) to inform a common EEN protocol in the future, and to gather perspectives on the need for nutrition resources for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: A questionnaire was created and emailed to paediatric dietitians working with gastroenterologists in public and private paediatric centres in Australia and NZ. Respondents were invited to provide details of their perspectives of EEN therapy and protocol details. RESULTS: Eighteen paediatric dietitians responded to the questionnaire, 10 from Australia and 8 from NZ. There was clear consensus between respondents on the duration of EEN being 6 and 8 weeks, the need for close dietitian supervision while on EEN, and the method of food reintroduction. There was lack of consensus between dietitians regarding permitted concomitant foods whilst on EEN. This study also determined a potential benchmarking relationship between IBD dietitian hours and numbers of patients on EEN per year in a centre. CONCLUSIONS: Paediatric dietitians in Australia and NZ are mostly aligned in their practice of EEN. Development of a standard EEN protocol, and patient IBD resources, will further align practice and allow for greater research possibilities.