Blenderized food tube feeding in patients with head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with headand neck cancer (HNC) are at high risk for malnutrition before and during chemoradiation treatment. Many will also require tube feeding to address declines in energy intake, weight, and quality of life (QOL) caused by the impact of treatment on gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Blenderized tube feeding (BTF) may ameliorate these adverse conditions. METHODS: In this open-label, prospective pilot study, 30 patients with HNC who required feeding tube placement were recruited to switch from standard commercial formula after 2 weeks to a commercially prepared BTF formula. Weight, body mass index (BMI), GI symptoms, and QOL scores were tracked for 6 weeks from the first week of feeding tube placement. RESULTS: Of the 16 patients who completed the 6-week assessment period, weights and BMI scores for 15 patients trended upward. For most patients, QOL and oral intake increased and GI symptoms decreased over the 6-week period, particularly during weeks 3 and 4, when the impact of treatment is particularly exacting on patients with HNC. CONCLUSION: BTF effectively mitigated weight loss, GI symptoms, QOL scores, and total energy intake in this group of patients with HNC who received tube feeding for 6 weeks.

Survey study assessing attitudes and experiences of pediatric registered dietitians regarding blended food by gastrostomy tube feeding.

BACKGROUND: Families of children requiring nutrition support may be interested in providing blenderized food by gastrostomy tube (BFGT). Some registered dietitians (RDs) recommend partial or full BFGT for children with tube feeding intolerance who are unresponsive to standard interventions. There is little published information on the safety and efficacy of BFGT feeding. The purpose of this survey was to elicit experiences of pediatric RDs with BFGT in clinical practices. METHODS: A survey instrument was distributed to members of the Pediatric Nutrition Practice Group to report experiences of BFGT in clinical practice. RESULTS: Response rate was 9.9% of total members (N = 2,448). Over half (58%) of the 244 respondents use and recommend BFGT. Reasons for use included parent request (70.2%), tube feeding intolerance (22.9%), and inability to obtain commercial formula (6.1%). Seventy-nine percent reported an overall positive outcome with BFGT. Older RDs were more familiar with BFGT but less likely to use it compared with younger RDs who use BFGT or wanted more information (P = .007). Twelve percent did not use or recommend BFGT due to concerns about bacterial contamination, unknown nutrient composition, inability to provide follow-up, and/or facility policy violations. Twenty-eight percent were familiar with BFGT but wanted more information. CONCLUSIONS: Interest in BFGT is largely parent-driven or explored as an option for children with tube feeding intolerance. Almost 80% of RDs using this feeding substrate report overall positive outcomes, but 28% indicate they want more information on using BFGT in clinical practice.