Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Clinical Nutrition
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/clnu

ESPEN Guideline

ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition

Stephan C. Bischoff a, *, Peter Austin b, c, Kurt Boeykens d, Michael Chourdakis e,
Cristina Cuerda f, Cora Jonkers-Schuitema g, Marek Lichota h, Ibolya Nyulasi i,

phane M. Schneider j, Zeno Stanga k, Loris Pironi l
Ste
a
University of Hohenheim, Institute of Nutritional Medicine, Stuttgart, Germany
b
Pharmacy Department, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
c
University College London School of Pharmacy, London, UK
d
AZ Nikolaas Hospital, Nutrition Support Team, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium
e
School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
f
Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Maran ~o

n, Nutrition Unit, Madrid, Spain
g
Amsterdam University Medical Center Location AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
h
Intestinal Failure Patients Association “Appetite for Life”, Cracow, Poland
i
Department of Nutrition, Department of Rehabilitation, Nutrition and Sport, Latrobe University; Department of Medicine, Monash University, Australia
j
Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Universit
^te d’Azur, Nice, France
e Co
k
Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Nutritional Medicine and Metabolism, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland
l
Center for Chronic Intestinal Failure, St. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o s u m m a r y

Article history: This guideline will inform physicians, nurses, dieticians, pharmacists, caregivers and other home enteral
Received 15 April 2019 nutrition (HEN) providers about the indications and contraindications for HEN, and its implementation
Accepted 19 April 2019 and monitoring. Home parenteral nutrition is not included but will be addressed in a separate ESPEN
guideline. This guideline will also inform interested patients requiring HEN. The guideline is based on
Keywords: current evidence and expert opinion and consists of 61 recommendations that address the indications for
Home enteral nutrition
HEN, relevant access devices and their use, the products recommended, the monitoring and criteria for
Tube feeding
termination of HEN, and the structural requirements needed to perform HEN. We searched for meta-
Nutrition support team
Enteral formula
analyses, systematic reviews and single clinical trials based on clinical questions according to the PICO
Monitoring format. The evidence was evaluated and used to develop clinical recommendations implementing the
SIGN method. The guideline was commissioned and financially supported by ESPEN and the members of
the guideline group were selected by ESPEN.
© 2019 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.

1. Introduction for HEN and for in-hospital enteral nutrition (EN). In HEN, addi-
tional criteria need to be considered carefully such as prognosis,
Since its introduction in the 1970s, HEN has been established as health-related quality of life (QoL) and any ethical aspect of the
a reliable and effective nutritional intervention, particularly rele- treatments. In order to initiate HEN, the principle should be fol-
vant due to the increasing reliance on ambulatory care. Usually HEN lowed that without EN there is an expectation of significant dete-
is started during a hospital stay and continued as a long-term home rioration of the patient's nutritional state, affecting prognosis and
therapy. Typically, there are only minor differences in the indication QoL, which is a complex decision, if there is no effective treatment
for the underlying medical condition.
Enteral nutrition support is a medical treatment but the de-
Abbreviations: BBS, Buried bumper syndrome; EN, enteral nutrition; HEN, home cisions on route, content, and management of nutritional support
enteral nutrition; HPN, home parenteral nutrition; NST, nutrition support team; are best made by multidisciplinary nutrition teams.
PEG, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; PEJ, percutaneous endoscopic jeju- This guideline provides evidenced-based information on the use
nostomy; PRG, percutaneous radiological gastrostomy; QoL, health-related quality
of HEN. There are numerous and often complex diseases that lead
of life; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RIG, radiologically inserted gastrostomy.
* Corresponding author. to the need for HEN, a description of which is not part of the present
E-mail address: bischoff.stephan@uni-hohenheim.de (S.C. Bischoff). guideline, but they include:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2019.04.022
0261-5614/© 2019 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
2 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx

Swallowing disorders because of neurological diseases, recommendations with an agreement higher than 90% (indicating a

Obstructions because of malignancies, strong consensus, Table 3) were directly passed, and all others were

Cachexia because of cancer, revised according to the comments and voted on again during a

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, consensus conference which took place during the 2018 ESPEN

Heart disease, Congress in Madrid on 2nd September 2018. Two recommenda-

Chronic infections, and tions (Recommendations 1 and 53) that originally had received

Malabsorption/maldigestion because of liver, pancreas, or in- more than 90% agreement were also voted on during the consensus
testinal diseases. conference due to major changes in wording. At that time, all rec-
ommendations except for eight of them received an agreement
The specific nutritional requirements for these diseases are higher than 90%. During the consensus conference, two of the
described in detail in other recently published ESPEN guidelines original recommendations were split into two separate recom-
(see ESPEN website and Clinical Nutrition journal). The present mendations. Therefore, the final guideline comprises of 61 recom-
guideline is focused on the methodology and clinical practice of mendations. To support the recommendations and the assigned
HEN, the related monitoring, and strategies to avoid complications. grades of recommendation, the ESPEN guideline office created
evidence tables of relevant meta-analyses, systematic reviews and
2. Methods (randomized) controlled trials. These evidence tables are available
online as supplemental material to this guideline (see
2.1. General methodology clinicalnutritionjournal.com).

The present guideline was developed according to the standard 2.2. Search strategy
operating procedure for ESPEN guidelines [1], and based in part on
the German guideline “Artificial Nutrition in the outpatient area” The literature search was performed separately for each PICO
[2]. The guideline was developed by an expert group representing question in March 2018. The Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane da-
different professions including physicians (SCB, MC, CC, SMS, ZS), a tabases were searched using the search filters “human”, “adult” and
pharmacist (PA), a nurse (KB) and dieticians (MC, IN, CJS), as well as “English”. Some authors included their mother tongue as well.
a patient representative (ML). Depending on the PICO questions, different search terms presented
Based on the standard operating procedures for ESPEN guide- in Table 4 were used in combination with “enteral nutrition”/”home
lines and consensus papers, the first development step of this enteral nutrition”/“tube feeding”/”home care services”/“intubation,
guideline was the formulation of so-called PICO questions to gastrointestinal”/“feeding tube placement”/“PEG”/”gastrostomy”/
address specific patient groups (or problems), interventions, “percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy”/“RIG”/“jejunostomy”/
compare different therapies and be outcome-related [1]. In total, 19 “PEJ”/“PEGJ”/”gastric button”/“nasogastric intubation”/“nasogastric
PICO questions were created and split into five main chapters tube”/naso gastric tube”/“enteral tube feeding”/“enteral feeding
entitled “Indication and contraindication for HEN”, “Access devices tube”. The results were pre-screened based on the abstracts. In
for HEN”, “Products recommended for HEN”, “Monitoring and addition to the named databases, websites from nutritional
termination of HEN” and “Structural requirements to perform (nursing) societies in English speaking or bilingual countries
HEN”. To answer these PICO questions, a literature search was including the English language were searched for practice
performed to identify suitable meta-analyses, systematic reviews guidelines.
and primary studies (for details see below, “search strategy”). Each
PICO question was allocated to subgroups/experts for the different 3. Recommendations
topics and 59 recommendations answering the PICO questions
were formulated. The grading system of the Scottish Intercollegiate 3.1. Indication and contraindication for HEN
Guidelines Network (SIGN) [3] was used to grade the literature. The
allocation of studies to the different levels of evidence is shown in 3.1.1. What are the indications for HEN?
Table 1. Supporting the recommendations, the working group Recommendation 1
added commentaries to explain their basis. HEN should be offered to patients at nutritional risk or
The grades of recommendation were decided according to the malnourished who cannot meet their nutrient requirements by
levels of evidence assigned (Table 2). In some cases, a downgrading normal dietary intake, who have a functioning gastrointestinal
from the generated grades of recommendation was necessary tract, who are able to receive therapy outside of an acute care
based on the levels of evidence according to Tables 1 and 2, e. g. due setting, and who agree and are able to comply with HEN therapy
to a lack of quality of primary studies included in a meta-analysis. with the goal of improving body weight, functional status or
Such cases are described in the commentaries accompanying the QoL.
respective recommendations. The wording of the recommenda- Grade of Recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (97%
tions reflects the grades of recommendations since level A is indi- agreement)
cated by the use of the word “shall”, level B by the word “should” Commentary
and level 0 by the word “can” or “may”. The good practice points HEN is indicated in patients who are at high nutritional risk or
(GPP) are based on experts’ opinions due to the lack of studies, for malnourished, who are unable to meet nutritional requirements by
which the choice of wording was not restricted. the oral route, and who exhibit a functional gastrointestinal tract
Between 27th June and 25th July 2018, an online voting on the [5]. Thus, HEN can be defined as a life-sustaining therapy and
recommendations was performed using the guideline-services.com should be considered if a patient's nutritional intake is likely to be
platform. All ESPEN members were invited to agree or disagree qualitatively or quantitatively insufficient for a week or more.
with the recommendations and to provide comments. A first draft According to ESPEN guidelines, an inadequate nutritional state
of the guideline was also made available to the participants on that is confirmed if patients cannot eat for a week or if the energy intake
occasion. Forty-three recommendations reached an agreement is less than 60% of estimated requirements for 1e2 weeks (corre-
>90%, 14 recommendations reached an agreement of >75e90% and sponding approximately to a daily energy intake of less than
two recommendations an agreement 75%. Those 10 kcal/kg/d or a daily energy deficit of 600e800 kcal/d) [6e9]. Poor

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

Table 1 Table 3
Definition of levels of evidence. Classification of the strength of consensus.

1þþ High quality meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs Strong consensus Agreement of >90% of the participants
with a very low risk of bias Consensus Agreement of >75e90% of the participants
1þ Well-conducted meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or RCTs with Majority agreement Agreement of >50e75% of the participants
a low risk of bias No consensus Agreement of <50% of the participants
1- Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or RCTs with a high risk of bias
According to the AWMF methodology [4].
2þþ High quality systematic reviews of case control or cohort or studies.
High quality case control or cohort studies with a very low risk of
confounding or bias and a high probability that the relationship is
causal esophagectomy or total gastrectomy demonstrated that HEN by
2þ Well-conducted case control or cohort studies with a low risk of jejunostomy as a usual practice was feasible, safe and acceptable to
confounding or bias and a moderate probability that the patients and their caregivers. Furthermore, the authors showed a
relationship is causal
2- Case control or cohort studies with a high risk of confounding or
substantial increase in anthropometric (weight, mid-arm muscle
bias and a significant risk that the relationship is not causal circumference, triceps skinfold) and functional (handgrip strength)
3 Non-analytic studies, e.g. case reports, case series parameters as well as cost efficiency at a six-month follow-up [14].
4 Expert opinion The effectiveness of HEN on clinical outcomes was shown in two
According to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) grading system studies that included cancer and Crohn's patients [15,16]. Two non-
[3]. randomized controlled studies (postoperative phase/during che-
moradiation) in malnourished esophageal cancer patients found,
HEN led to an improvement in QoL [17,18]. In another retrospective
nutritional intake is presumed when normal food ingestion multicenter study with more 2842 patients, Klek et al. confirmed
covering individual requirements cannot be met despite the most that e when indicated e HEN is a safe, well-tolerated and cost-
skilled dietetic treatment and medical management of anorexia, effective procedure [19].
gastrointestinal disorders, pain, and psychosocial stress. In this
situation, initiation of EN should be within the week. Significant
3.1.2. Who needs HEN?
impairment of the nutritional state has to be assumed if the patient
Recommendation 2
has lost >5% in one month (z>15% in three months) of body weight
Prior to discharge from hospital of patients at risk of
[10]. The nutritional state may deteriorate more rapidly if food
malnutrition (e.g. patients with neurological disease, head
absorption is less than 75% of the daily requirements based on
injury, head and neck cancer, gastrointestinal and other ma-
general recommendations [11,12], or if there has been previous
lignancies, non-neoplastic gastrointestinal disease including
weight loss (e.g., loss of appetite, dysphagia) or concomitant cata-
malabsorptive syndromes), either oral nutritional supplements
bolic processes (e.g. infections, systemic inflammation) or if
or HEN should be considered.
arduous treatment (e.g., chemotherapy) is concurrent [13].
Grade of Recommendation B e Strong consensus (96%
Before prescribing HEN, the absence of contraindications must
agreement)
be checked (recommendations 3e5). When HEN is prescribed, it is
Commentary
essential that the attending physician and a (nutrition) nurse
In epidemiological data collected from 3246 Italian patients over
specialist or dietician inform the patient in detail about potential
an 11-year period, a progressive annual increase in HEN therapy
benefits and risks of the treatment. The patient should give his/her
could be observed [20]. The mean incidence was 406 ± 58 patients/
consent and actively express their desire for the planned nutritional
million inhabitants/year for patients living at home and 319 ± 44
treatment. It is also important to discuss the choice of enteral access
for patients living in nursing homes (mean prevalence rate ± SD:
and appropriate care with the patient. Furthermore, the technical
464 ± 129 cases/million inhabitants at home compared to
measures necessary for the preparation and administration of HEN
478 ± 164 in nursing homes) [20].
have to be implemented to ensure that it can be performed safely,
According to several epidemiological studies and European na-
effectively and efficiently over the long term.
tional registries, the most frequent indications for HEN in adults are
The primary aims of HEN are to correct significant nutritional
neurological diseases (neurovascular and -degenerative), head and
deficiencies, to avoid further loss of body weight, and to stop the
neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, and other cancers, cerebral
related deterioration of the patient's subjective QoL, all of which
palsy, non-neoplastic gastrointestinal disease (e.g., fistulae,
can result from poor oral nutritional intake. A multi-center ran-
esophageal stenosis, inflammatory bowel disease), head injury,
domized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating patients undergoing
malabsorptive syndromes (e.g., short bowel syndrome), severe in-
testinal motility disorders, inherited metabolic diseases, and cystic
Table 2 fibrosis (Table 5) [5,15,19e27]
Definition of grades of recommendation [1]. A retrospective Italian study found a median duration of HEN is
A At least one meta-analysis, systematic review, or RCT rated as 1þþ,
about 196 days [25]. Broken down by pathology, duration was 261
and directly applicable to the target population; or A body of days for neurovascular disease, 251.5 days for neurodegenerative
evidence consisting principally of studies rated as 1þ, directly disease, 118 days for head and neck cancer, 82.5 days for abdominal
applicable to the target population, and demonstrating overall cancer, 788 days for head injuries, and 387 days for congenital
consistency of results
pathologies. Only 7.9% of the patients resumed oral nutrition, and
B A body of evidence including studies rated as 2þþ, directly
applicable to the target population; or A body of evidence including the median survival rate was 9.1 months [25].
studies rated as 2þ, directly applicable to the target population and
demonstrating overall consistency of results; or and demonstrating
3.1.3. When is HEN not to be recommended? (Contraindication)
overall consistency of results; or Extrapolated evidence from studies
rated as 1þþ or 1þ Recommendation 3
0 Evidence level 3 or 4; or Extrapolated evidence from studies rated If life expectancy is estimated to be less than one month, HEN
as 2þþ or 2þ usually shall not be initiated.
GPP Good practice points/expert consensus: Recommended best practice Grade of recommendation GPP e Consensus (78%
based on the clinical experience of the guideline development group
agreement)

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
4 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 4
Search terms.

PICO question Search terms used in combination with “enteral nutrition”a

No.

1.1 “indication”
1.2 “diagnosis”, “outcome”
1.3 “contraindication”
2.1 þ 2.2 “buried bumper syndrome”, “gastrostomy site”, “wound infection”, “gastrostomy exit site care”, “gastrostomy tube care”, “gastrostomy tube aftercare”,
“gastrostomy tube dressing”, “nursing care”, “granuloma”, “hypergranulation tissue”, “overgranulation”, “leakage”, “excoriation”
2.3 þ 2.4 “start”, “tube placement”, “PEG placement”, “bolus”, “continuous”, “pump”, “mobile device”, “jejunostomy feeding, “home care”
2.5 “Home Care Services”, Home Care Services, hospital-based”, “home Residence Characteristics”, “Residential Treatment”, Residential Facilities”, “Primary
Health Care”, “primary care”, “primarycare” the above mentioned search terms were additionally combined with:
“administration”, “parenteral drug administration”
3.1 þ 3.2 “Home Care Services”, Home Care Services, hospital-based”, “home Residence Characteristics”, “Residential Treatment”, Residential Facilities”, “Primary
Health Care”, “primary care”, “primarycare” the above mentioned search terms were additionally combined with:
“product or type or enteral feed or formula”
4.1 “case management”, “monitoring”, “follow-up”
4.2 “discontinuation”, “stop”, “weaning”, “oral autonomy”
4.3 “complications”
4.4 “quality of life”
5.1e5.3 “personnel”, “health personnel”, “healthcare” AND “professionals”, “Healthcare professionals”, “interdisciplinary studies”, “interdisciplinary” AND
“studies”, “multidisciplinary” AND ”team”, “education”, “training”
a
The search terms displayed in this column were either combined by the operator “OR” or the different terms/spellings were used in different databases according to their
specific headwords.

Commentary This recommendation has been adopted from the German

This recommendation is based on a previous recommendation guideline “Artificial Nutrition in the outpatient area” [2] and fits to
of the German Society for clinical nutrition [2]. An effort should be the “ESPEN ethical guideline” [29].
made to estimate life expectancy to ensure optimal care [28]. For
further recommendations regarding HEN, the ESPEN guideline on
3.2. Access devices for HEN
ethical aspects of artificial nutrition and hydration [29] and the
ESPEN guideline on Clinical Nutrition in Neurology [30] should be
3.2.1. Which access devices (tubes etc.) are recommended for HEN?
considered.
Recommendation 6
Recommendation 4
HEN can be delivered through a nasal feeding tube in pa-
HEN shall not be performed in patients with contraindica-
tients who need HEN only for a short period of time (up to 4e6
tions such as severe functional disturbances of the bowel,
weeks).
gastrointestinal obstruction, gastrointestinal tract bleeding,
Grade of recommendation 0 e Consensus (90% agreement)
severe malabsorption or severe metabolic imbalances.
Commentary
Grade of recommendation GPP e Consensus (84%
The most appropriate route for outpatient nutritional support
agreement)
depends on the functioning, accessibility and digestive and/or
Commentary
absorptive capacity of the gastrointestinal tract. There should be a
This recommendation is based on good clinical practice and not
careful consideration (incorporating contra-indications) when
specific to HEN. It applies similarly to EN in general.
selecting the route for administration. If HEN is needed for a limited
Recommendation 5
time (usually meaning up to six weeks), nasogastric tube feeding
If patient and/or their legal carers do not to agree to a HEN
can be used. Even longer periods are possible, certainly with fine-
program or are unlikely to comply with and/or if there are
bore nasogastric feeding tubes, when long term percutaneous
organizational/logistic problems which cannot be overcome,
endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or radiologically inserted gastro-
HEN should not be offered.
stomy (RIG) options are not suitable [25,31]. If there is already a
Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (97%
device in situ that could be used for the provision of EN the use of
agreement)
that device should be considered.
Commentary
Recommendation 7

Table 5
Indications for initiation of HEN including prevalence and outcomes improved by HEN.

HEN Indications Overall HEN Prevalence Overall HEN Outcomes

Neurodegenerative and neurovascular diseases:
1994, 153/106 [26]
Prevention of weight loss. Maintain of anthropometric values. Cost
30.5% [5], 54.4% [19], 60.5% [27], 38% [24], 67.6% [25]
1995, 142/106 [26] effectiveness [14]

Neurodegenerative diseases: 28.9% [19], 40.9% [25]
1996, 162/106 [26]
Improvement in QoL [17,18]

Neurovascular diseases: 25.5% [19], 26.7% [25]
2001, 95.2/106 [26]
Safe, well-tolerated and cost-effective procedure. Resumed full oral

Cardiorespiratory diseases: 13.3% [5]
2003, 265/106 [26] nutrition: Neurological disorders 27%, cancer 22.6%, GI disorders 77.1%.

Head and neck cancer: 7.5% [19], 17.3% [27], 11.5% [25]
2008, 308.7/106 [25] Switch to HPN: GI disorders 4.6% [19]

GI cancer: 7.1% [19], 7.1% [27], 9.8% [25]
2009, 300/106 [26]
Resumed full oral nutrition 18.7%. Switch to PN 0.32% [27]

Cancer of other location: 15.3% [5], 8.2% [19]
2010, 296/106 [26]
Resumed full oral nutrition: Neurological diseases 23.6%, digestive

Protein-calorie malnutrition: 2.7% [5], 3.0% [19]
2013, 67.1/106 [27], diseases 52.6%, head and neck cancer 31.3%, dementia 11.1%, anorexia

Inherited metabolic disease: 5.8% [5], 2.3% [19], 2.6% [25] 47.6/106 [19] 56.2%, AIDS 41.2% [26]

Malabsorption syndromes: 0.9% [27], 1.9% [24]
2014, 80.8/106 [27]

Intestinal motility disorders: 0.6% [27], 1.3% [24]
2015, 90.5/106 [27]

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

Table 6 Grade of recommendation B e Strong consensus (100%

Items to instruct before the patient can discharge [79,89,90,140,149,151e155]. agreement)

The quantity of EN, and which brand should be administered; Recommendation 9

Total amount of fluid administrated; If a PEG if not suitable for long-term HEN a percutaneous

Duration of administration, during day or night; laparoscopic assisted gastrostomy (PLAG) may be a safe

The use of the enteral feeding pump and what to do in case of dysfunction of
alternative.
the pump (if a pump is used at all);

Whether the patient is allowed to have oral intake next to HEN (any Grade of recommendation 0 e Strong consensus (93%
restrictions?); agreement)

Personal care, impact of HEN on daily life (shower, swimming, party, holiday); Commentary to recommendations 8 and 9

Who will take care of the administration of the EN (patient, family, [home care Gastrostomies may be inserted surgically, endoscopically or
company] nurse);

How to secure the tube adequately;
under radiological guidance. The procedure is performed either

How to administrate medications through the tube; under local anesthesia, with or without mild sedation, or under

Who will change or reinsert the tube in case of dislocation; general anesthesia. Anesthetic intervention during gastrostomy

What to do in case of blocked tube; placement helps to guarantee the safety of patient by anesthetic
 Who to contact in case of material or physiologic complications (material;
monitoring but might be also a risk and therefore the procedure
dislocation, blocked tube and/or breaking material) and physiologic
complications (diarrhea, constipation, aspiration, change of weight, needs to be planed individually. For outpatients, the procedure may
dehydration); and take place on a day care basis or as a short hospital stay. A desig-

How often the patient should be evaluated, by whom and where. nated team, e.g. a percutaneous enteral tube feeding service, which
could be within the remit of the hospital nutrition support team
A PEG or, if indicated, a percutaneous endoscopic jejunos- (NST), can provide a framework for patient selection, pre-assess-
tomy (PEJ) is the preferred access device and should be placed ment, and peri- and post-procedural care. A correct approach by
when long-term HEN is required. the managing team ensures that the correct feeding route is
Grade of recommendation B e Strong consensus (93% selected at the appropriate time, which can reduce complications.
agreement) Also, ethical considerations, especially for patients with a poor QoL,
Commentary have to be taken into account.
The recommendation to use a PEG or a PEJ for long-term HEN is There is widespread acceptance of PEG as the insertion tech-
based on a RCT [32] cited in the ESPEN Cancer guideline [6], in nique of choice over a conventional surgical gastrostomy due to its
which PEG and nasogastric tubes were compared in head and neck lower cost, simplicity, operating time and lower complications
cancer patients, three systematic reviews on the same topic [43e45]. However, there are patients that are not appropriate
[33e35], and a systematic review comparing PEG with nasogastric candidates for PEG or in whom there are failed attempts at PEG
tubes in dysphagic patients [36]. Body weight may be maintained placement [46]. A systematic review and meta-analysis could only
similarly by both PEG and nasogastric feeding [35] whilst the risk of demonstrate fewer complications with PEG compared to surgical
tube dislodgement is lower [35,36] and QoL is possibly better [32], gastrostomy in the randomized studies included in the analysis
although nasogastric tubes were associated with less dysphagia [43]. A large observational study comparing PLAG, PEG, percuta-
[35] and earlier weaning after completion of radiotherapy [33,35]. neous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) and conventional surgical
The latter advantages limit the clear recommendation for the PEG gastrostomy demonstrated the lowest complication rate in the
suggested by the prior studies and lead to the “B” rather than “A” PLAG group [47].
grade of recommendation. Another RCT conducted in oral cancer In a systematic review from Yuan et al. [48] both PEG and PRG
patients revealed a significant benefit regarding post-surgical were effective for long-term EN support in selected individuals
wound infection in a PEG group compared to the nasogastric tube although another review indicated PEG to be associated with a
group [37]. A systematic review including eleven RCT reported lower probability of 30-day mortality compared to RIG, suggesting
fewer intervention failure (e.g., feeding interruption, blocking or that PEG should be considered as the first choice for long-term EN
leakage of the tube, better adherence to treatment) and better [49]. Finally, a retrospective review revealed that the rates of tube
improvement in nutritional status (e.g. weight loss from baseline, dislodgement were significantly higher in the RIG group compared
mid-arm circumference) in the PEG group compared to the naso- to the PEG group [50].
gastric tube group [36]. Also, QoL (e.g. inconvenience, discomfort, Recommendation 10
altered body image and social activities) was in favor of PEG. There RIG or PRG can be used as alternative techniques for the
was no significant difference in mortality rates and aspiration placement of a feeding tube into the stomach, if an endoscopi-
pneumonia between the two groups. Another systematic review cally guided tube placement cannot be performed.
could not draw firm conclusions as to whether or not PEG feeding Grade of recommendation 0 e Strong consensus (97%
was beneficial over nasogastric tube feeding in older non-stroke agreement)
dysphagia patients [38]. Fay et al. [39] came to the same conclusion Commentary
in patients on long-term EN, although for an unknown reason early The risk of peritonitis and mortality is lowered if the gastro-
aspiration pneumonia was less frequent in the PEG group. On the stomy is placed by an endoscopic rather than radiological technique
other hand, in a multicenter prospective cohort study of long-term [50e52]. Radiological techniques should be reserved for those pa-
EN in elderly hospitalized people, PEG use was associated with tients in whom an endoscopic technique is not possible. However
improved survival, was better tolerated and was associated with a both PEG and PRG are effective for long-term EN support in selected
lower incidence of aspiration [40] compared to nasogastric feeding. individuals [48].
Using a PEJ or PEG/J (PEG with a jejunal extension) tube for HEN Recommendation 11
may be a suitable approach in case of gastroduodenal motility In case of inadvertent displacement or removal of the PEG
disorders, gastric outlet stenosis or high risk of aspiration [41,42]. more than four weeks after initial placement, direct replace-
Recommendation 8 ment can be safely attempted before the track closes
A PEG should be preferred over a surgical gastrostomy for completely.
long-term HEN, mainly due a lower complication rate, cost- Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (93%
effectiveness and operating time. agreement)

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
6 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx

Commentary freshly inserted PEG tube system for the initial 24 h to achieve
A mature fibrous tract is a prerequisite for replacement of a PEG better adaptation of the gastric to the abdominal wall [56] The PEG
after inadvertent removal, dislodgement, occlusion or breakage. exit site has to be monitored on a daily basis (for signs of bleeding,
Patients who are at risk for inadvertent removal (e.g. dementia, pain, erythema, induration, leakage, and inflammation) and
delirium) require preventive measures to protect the tube. Adher- cleansed (to remove any debris) with 0.9% w/v sodium chloride,
ence of the stomach to the abdominal wall normally takes place sterile water or freshly boiled and cooled water. A sterile Y dressing
within 7e14 days but can be delayed in patients with impaired to compress (that does not shed fibers), placed under the external
wound healing (e.g. malnutrition, ascites or corticosteroid treat- disc plate, is commonly used, followed by a skin friendly and sol-
ment) [53]. Inadvertent removal of a recently placed percutaneous vent-free breathable dressing. When the dressing is placed under
gastrostomy tube (<four weeks), is an emergency. the exterior bumper, tension has to be avoided [55,57]. Occlusive
In the first two weeks, replacement is mostly done endoscopically dressings should be avoided because they promote a moist wound
or radiologically through the same site. Between two and for weeks environment and can lead to skin maceration [56,57].
after initial placement, besides endoscopic replacement, blind According to previous guidelines [61,62] the grades of recom-
reposition can be attempted (upon medical decision) if the tube mendations 12 and 13 have been upgraded to a “B”, even though
position is afterwards checked by a water-soluble contrast study [54]. the underlying primary literature evidence rather fits to a “0”.
Replacement should be executed expeditiously to maintain patency Within these guidelines, a direct comparison of “no care” versus
and prevent closure of the tract [41]. Balloon-type replacement tubes “aseptic care” is missing, and instead only “cleansing” vs “disin-
are mostly used for blind replacement. If a first tube change can be fection” was examined for obvious (ethical) reasons.
planned, it is recommended to perform it in a hospital, and after- Two RCTs in adults investigated alternative wound dressings
wards replacement may be completed in a home care setting or compared with standard wound dressings. The more recent study
nursing home by a nurse, if patients are not able to perform it [55]. demonstrated a statistically significant reduction of the mean
If no commercially available gastrostomy tube with similar infection scores at the end of the first and second week using a
diameter is available for immediate replacement, a balloon-tipped glycerin hydrogel wound dressing (applied the day after placement
Foley catheter of the same size can be used temporarily to keep the and changed every week during four weeks) [56,58]. However, the
tract open and, if necessary, to administer EN, fluids or medications, other study showed no advantage of a glycogel wound dressing
although this is currently more difficult with universal safety con- regarding peristomal infection after one week of usage [59]. Both
nectors (e.g. “ENFit®”) [55]. If there is any doubt of malposition after studies concluded that by omitting daily changes of regular wound
blind replacement then endoscopic or radiologic confirmation of dressings these adjunctive techniques or barriers can be a good
correct position using a water-soluble contrast should be carried cost-effective alternative. The findings were confirmed in a very
out prior to use of the tube. Alternative techniques to check proper recent RCT using a hydrogel in children [60].
position is pH confirmation of gastric content (pH 5 or less), irri- After approximately one week (or if properly healed) the
gation of the tube with 3e50 ml sterile water without resistance or stoma site can be cleansed twice a week with a clean cloth
leakage from around the stoma, assessment of external length of using fresh tap water and soap and afterwards the skin can be
the tube and manipulation of the tube via rotation and ineout gently and thoroughly dried. With a well healed exit site also,
movement [59,60]. showering, bathing and swimming (it is advisable to cover the
site with a waterproof dressing when swimming in public pools)
3.2.2. How should the tubes, the tube insertions sites and is possible after a few weeks. For some patients it may be
consumables be handled during HEN? advisable to use an additional fixation or securement to mini-
Recommendation 12 mize traction on the stoma site [57]. Once the patient is dis-
Until the stoma tract is formed and the incision is healed, the charged it is important to guarantee further competent and high
PEG exit site should be daily monitored and kept clean and dry quality of care by means of clear and univocal verbal commu-
by using aseptic wound care (usually up to 5e7 days post nication and written or visual materials for caregivers and/or
procedure). patients. It should be also pointed out which department or
Grade of recommendation B e Strong consensus (100% service can be used as an (emergency) advice point [61].
agreement) Recommendation 16
Recommendation 13 Immediately after placement of the PEG, the external fixation
A glycerin hydrogel or glycogel dressing should be used as an plate should be subjected to very low traction, without tension.
alternative to classical aseptic wound care during the first Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (93%
week(s). agreement)
Grade of recommendation B e Strong consensus (97% Recommendation 17
agreement) Once the gastrostomy tract has been healed (after about one
Recommendation 14 week), the tube should be rotated daily and should be moved
After stoma healing, dressings can be reduced to one or two inwards at least once a week (at least 2 cm, up to 10 cm).
times a week, and the entry site can be cleansed using soap and Grade of recommendation GPP e Consensus (87%
water of drinking quality. agreement)
Grade of recommendation 0 - Strong consensus (90% Recommendation 18
agreement) After mobilization, the tube may be returned to its initial
Recommendation 15 position with some free distance (0.5e1 cm) between the skin
Alternatively to recommendation 14, dressings can be and the external bolster.
omitted and the site can be left open. Grade of recommendation 0 e Strong consensus (93%
Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (92% agreement)
agreement) Recommendation 19
Commentary to recommendations 12e15 If the device is a gastrojejunostomy or gastrostomy with je-
During the first week after insertion of PEG one aim is to prevent junal extension it should not be rotated (only weekly pushed in
stoma tract infection. It is not necessary to apply traction to the and out).

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (92% to more skin maceration). Local fungal skin infections may also be
agreement) associated with leakage and can be treated with topical antifungal
Commentary to recommendations 16e19 agents. It is important to verify the proper tension between the two
Buried bumper syndrome (BBS) is a severe complication in bolsters whilst avoiding unnecessary tube movement or excessive
which the internal fixation device migrates alongside the tract of pressure (see also Recommendation 16). Side torsion resulting in a
the stoma outside to the stomach. The device can end up anywhere too large stoma tract, can be corrected by stabilizing the tube using
between the stomach mucosa and the surface of the skin [62]. BBS a clamping device or switching to a low-profile device [53]. If a
is a usually long-term, uncommon, severe but preventable balloon retaining device is present, the volume content of the
complication with adequate nursing aftercare. Alarming signals are balloon has to correspond with the manufacturer's recommenda-
any difficulty in mobilizing the tube, leakage around the insertion tions and regularly checked (e.g. once a week). In case of a button
site when trying to flush the tube, frequent feeding pump alarms gastrostomy, one needs to ensure that the correct balloon size and
(that may indicate obstruction), abdominal pain, chronic site in- tube length are being used [57]. If local infection or excessive
fections or resistance with administrating EN or fluids [42]. The granulation tissue are present, this should be properly managed
most important risk factor leading to BBS is excessive compression (see also Recommendations 22 and 24). Replacing the tube with a
of tissue between the internal and external fixation device (most larger-diameter tube seems to be not very effective and can result
often with rigid or semi-rigid internal devices) [63]. The distance in an enlarged stoma tract with more leakage [55]. In some re-
between the two bolsters should not be too loose or too restrictive. fractory cases it can be tried to remove the tube for 24e48 hours,
The tube should be advanced into the stomach for a minimum of which permits slight spontaneously closure of the tract aiming that
about 2e3 cm, but with small movements there is a risk of just the replacement tube will fit more closely [70]. If all above
moving the abdominal wall, so ideally it should be even up to mentioned measures fail, a new gastrostomy has to be placed at a
5e10 cm [64]. This can start after approximately one week because new location.
earlier it can cause local pain and damage tract formation. A PEG Recommendation 22
can also be imbedded in the gastric mucosa even if it is still possible Excessive granulation tissue is a common problem of PEG
to rotate the PEG. This can happen when a gastric mucosa ‘pocket’ and should be avoided or treated using appropriate methods.
has grown over and round the bumper [64]. When stiches/sutures Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (93%
are present because the stomach is fixed to the abdominal wall agreement)
(gastropexy), mobilization of the tube can be delayed until the Commentary
sutures have been removed (usually after two weeks). Note that the The development of overgranulation tissue forming around the
device should not be rotated (but only moved in and out) if a jejunal gastrostomy tube is a common complication in patients with a PEG
extension is present within the tube or if the tube is a gastro- tube. Granulation tissue is vascular, so it bleeds easily and is
jejunostomy [57,65]. sometimes painful. Common causes of overgranulation include
Recommendation 20 excess moisture, excess friction or movement from a poorly secured
In case of peristomal leakage of gastric contents at the stoma tube and critical colonization, leakage or infection (recommenda-
site, the surrounding skin can be properly protected using zinc tions 22 and 24). A barrier film or cream may be administered to
oxide-based skin protectants. protect the surrounding skin and if the overgranulation tissue is
Grade of recommendation 0 e Strong consensus (93% exuding. The affected skin should be cleaned minimum once a day
agreement) using an antimicrobial cleanser. Further, a wide variety of treatment
Recommendation 21 options are possible such as the application of a topical antimi-
Proton pomp inhibitors can be used for decreasing leakage crobial agent under the fixation device, or a foam or silver dressing
by minimizing gastric acid secretion and e if used e needs to be over the affected area which has to be changed only if there is
reviewed regularly. evidence of significant exudate (but at least weekly). Another op-
Grade of recommendation 0 e Strong consensus (96% tion is to apply cauterization by silver nitrate directly onto the
agreement) overgranulation tissue. Alternatively, a topical corticosteroid cream
Commentary to recommendations 20 and 21 or ointment can be administered for 7e10 days in combination
A small peristomal liquid drainage in the week after placement with a foam dressing to provide compression to the treatment site.
can occur, but leakage of gastric content (very often in combination Finally, surgical removal and argon plasma coagulation have been
with signs of peristomal infection or gastrostomy tract enlarge- described in the literature. If the above steps prove ineffective, an
ment) can lead to serious problems and even tube loss. Risk factors alternative brand or type of gastrostomy tube can be tried
for peristomal leakage include skin infection, increased gastric acid [42,57,71].
secretion, gastroparesis, increased abdominal pressure, con- Recommendation 23
stipation, side torsion of the tube (which leads to ulceration and Tube replacement should be accomplished in case of tube
enlargement of the tract), increased tension between the internal breakage, occlusion, dislodgement or degradation.
and external bolster, BBS and the presence of granuloma tissue in Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (93%
the tract [55,66,67]. Also, patient-related factors can hinder wound agreement)
healing such as diabetes (hyperglycemia), immunosuppression and Commentary
malnutrition. In rare cases where leakage is obvious (or immedi- Most transorally placed bumper-type tubes can be maintained
ately after initial placement), EN should be delayed or stopped. for many years. The durability of a PEG tube system is primarily
Gastric decompression and starting proton pump inhibitors and/or linked to its careful handling. There is no need to exchange a tube
prokinetics can be useful while simultaneously optimizing nutri- system at regular intervals [56]. Replacement will be required
tional (e.g. with starting PN) and medical status [68]. In any case, to eventually because of breakage, occlusion, dislodgement or
minimize skin breakdown due to leakage, a topical skin product as degradation [42]. A percutaneous enteral access device that shows
a powdered absorbing agent or a barrier film, paste or cream signs of fungal colonization with material deterioration and
(containing zinc oxide) can be applied [69]. Also, foam dressings compromised structural integrity should be replaced in a non-ur-
rather than gauze can be used to reduce local skin irritation (foam gent but timely manner [41]. For a bumper-type tube, retrieval is
lifts the drainage away from the skin, whereas gauze can contribute performed by cutting the tube at the abdominal skin level and

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
8 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx

pushing the internal bumper into the intestinal lumen (‘cut and Commentary
push’ technique) [72]. Migration is usually uneventful even with Hospitalized patients commencing HEN should be established
large-caliber tubes [73]. Nevertheless, endoscopic retrieval of the on a stable feeding regimen before discharge from hospital. The
bumper is advocated in cases of previous bowel surgery and for patient's ability to tolerate the volume and type of feed to be
patients at risk of strictures or an ileus, which could hinder spon- administered at home must be confirmed. If the patient has been
taneous migration and elimination of the sectioned bumper [42]. admitted for a day procedure for the purpose of tube (re)placement,
The replacement can be performed in many ways: endoscopically, the gastrointestinal function needs to be ascertained before
radiologically, surgically or at bedside (depending upon the type of discharge to ensure safety. Commencement of HEN feeding de-
gastrostomy tube being replaced) [57]. Balloon-type replacement pends on the type and position of the tube. For all tube types the
tubes are mostly used for blind replacement through the same correct position must be verified and if an interventional procedure
matured tract. The balloon is inflated with sterile (no saline) water has been performed e. g. gastrostomy or jejunostomy insertion, a
(usually 5e10 mL) and water volume may be checked every week to period of observation to ensure no surgical complication is
prevent spontaneous balloon deflation because of water leakage. required. HEN patients and their carers, need training in managing
However, because of balloon degradation, this type of tube may their EN regimens by a multidisciplinary team [78]. Prior to
require replacement every three to four months [42,74]. discharge they need to be able to demonstrate competency in feed
Recommendation 24 administration, equipment handling and some basic trouble
When a site infection is suspected or diagnosed, an antimi- shooting in case of tube or equipment failure [79].
crobial agent can be topically applied to the entry site of the Recommendation 27
tube and the surrounding tissue, and e if the site infection The patient with a nasogastric tube can start HEN immedi-
cannot be resolved by this treatment ecombined with systemic ately according to the previously established nutritional care
broad-spectrum antibiotics. plan once appropriate tube placement has been confirmed.
Grade of recommendation 0 e Strong consensus (93% Grade of Recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (96%
agreement) agreement)
Recommendation 25 Commentary
If the infection cannot be resolved by the procedure Once naso-gastric tube position is confirmed HEN feeding can
described in Recommendation 24, the tube should be removed. commence or continue according to previously established nutri-
Grade of recommendation GPP e Consensus (86% tional care plan. There is no evidence that feeds should be diluted at
agreement) the start of HEN just for dilution purposes, unless additional liquid
Commentary to recommendations 24 and 25 in form of water is needed [80]. Whatever tube access is used;
A site infection is a common complication after transoral gas- caution should be exercised if refeeding syndrome is suspected. In
trostomy placement [75]. Patients with diabetes, obesity, poor such cases, appropriate guidelines should be followed to prevent
nutritional status and those on chronic corticosteroid therapy or metabolic complications.
other immunosuppressive therapy, are at increased risk for infec- Recommendation 28
tion [76]. Also, hyper-hydrated or inflamed skin, due to leakage, can Adults with uncomplicated gastrostomy tube placement can
promote growth of microorganisms (see Recommendations 20 and commence EN within 2e4 hours after the procedure.
21). Prevention consists of first-line aseptic wound care after Grade of recommendation A e Strong consensus (100%
placement and early detection of signs and symptoms of infection agreement)
such as loss of skin integrity, erythema, purulent and/or Commentary
malodorous exudate, fever and pain [77]. One needs to ensure that Traditionally, following gastrostomy insertion, EN commenced
the external bolster is not too tight, causing too much pressure slowly with gradual increase in water or saline followed by enteral
between the internal and external bolster. The area can be swabbed formula. Recent meta-analysis of RCTs showed no difference in
for both bacterial and fungal infection. An antimicrobial ointment complication when feeding was commenced <4 hours compared to
or a dressing with an antimicrobial agent which delivers a sus- delayed or next day feeding [42]. There is no evidence to support
tained release to the gastrostomy site can be used: these dressings the practice of water trials prior to commencing EN via the gas-
typically get their antimicrobial activity from silver, iodine or pol- trostomy tube or device [56,81,82].
yhexamethylene biguanide and are available in different forms, e. g. Recommendation 29
foams, hydrocolloids or alginates. Be aware of allergies to any of the A graduated program of commencement of jejunal HEN
product components and silver dressings cannot be worn during feeds should be followed.
magnetic resonance imaging procedures. Tailored systemic antibi- Grade of Recommendation B e Strong consensus (93%
otics or (if proven) antifungal agents can be used in combination agreement)
with local therapy. Topical antibiotics should not be used. In case of Commentary
stoma tract disruption, peristomal infection that persists despite This issue has been subject to clinical studies and these provide
appropriate antimicrobial treatment, skin excoriation or a fungal information to guide the clinician in the HEN setting. Jejunal
infection (particularly if a silicone tube is in situ) it is advisable to feeding post abdominal surgery has increasingly become part of
remove and/or replace the gastrostomy tube [57,77]. routine care [83]. The feed can be delivered into the jejunum via
either naso-jejunal or jejunostomy tube. In either case, feed starting
3.2.3. When and how should HEN be started after tube placement? regimens have not been defined and there is a wide heterogeneity
Recommendation 26 in practice. Studies recommend a starting infusion of 10 mL/h of
HEN may be started when patient is medically stable and (i) 0.9% w/v sodium chloride in the first 24 hours after tube insertion,
correct placement of the tube position is verified; (ii) tolerance followed by commencing EN at 10 mL/h for 24 hours and then
to enteral prescription (volume and formula) is demonstrated; increasing the rate by 20 mL/h until nutrient target was reached
and (iii) the patient and/or provider have appropriate knowl- usually by day 6 [84]. A prospective randomized trial conducted by
edge and skills to manage HEN. Han-Geurts in 2007 used a starter regimen of 1.0 kcal/mL contin-
Grade of Recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (100% uously delivered by pump commencing at 30 mL/h on the first
agreement) post-operative day and increasing to 84 mL/h on the third day as

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx 9

tolerated [85]. Ninety percent of patients tolerated this feeding can provide autonomy to patients to meet their nutritional needs
regimen and attained full nutritional targets. but at the same time allow for life style preferences.
A systematic review of routes for early feeding post esoph- Recommendation 32
agectomy reported that EN commenced on postoperative day 1 and Routine water flushing before and after feeding can prevent
gradually increased to meet nutritional requirements by day 3 was tube obstruction and should be part of patient/carer education.
well tolerated [86]. Though in some centers progression of feeding Grade of Recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (100%
regimens meant that only half the patients reached target rate at agreement)
day 8. Regimens for commencement of jejunal feeding where no Commentary
surgical procedure has been performed are poorly defined in the Regardless of the administration route (gastral or jejunal),
literature, however provided that there is no resection of the feeding tubes are prone to blockages, primarily due to the chem-
gastrointestinal tract, and possibly less chance of ileus, starting istry of the protein rich solutions, the viscosity of the fluid and the
regimens tend to be more liberal. small diameter of the tube lumen. This problem is further exacer-
bated the longer the feeding tube is and if medications are
administered through the tube. Tubes should be flushed with at
3.2.4. How should the HEN be administered (bolus or continuous), least 30 mL of water of drinking quality before starting and after
with pumps or mobile devices? completion of feeds in case of bolus administration or 4-hourly if
Recommendation 30 continuous feeding [91].
The method of HEN administration should be a decision of
the multidisciplinary NST involved with the patient care, 3.2.5. Can an enteral tube being used for HEN also be used for drug
considering patient's disease, type of feeding tube in position, administration? If yes, how should an enteral tube be used for drug
feed tolerance and patient preference. administration?
Grade of Recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (100% Recommendation 33
agreement) An enteral tube being used for EN can also be used for drug
Commentary administration if the efficacy of drug administration can be
Patient activity level, social environment and individual abilities confirmed.
should be considered when choosing delivery methods [87]. In Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (92%
some settings, the financial costs attributable to HEN treatment agreement)
needs to be considered as it might influence the choice of admin- Recommendation 34
istration methods. If an enteral tube is used for drug administration, adequate
Recommendation 31 information should be offered to patients and carers with the
Bolus or intermittent continuous or continuous infusion involvement of a pharmacist.
through a pump may be used depending on clinical need, safety Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (100%
and level of precision required. agreement)
Grade of Recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (92% Commentary to recommendations 33 and 34
agreement) The administration of medicines through enteral feeding tubes
Commentary is a widespread practice but a recent survey in the United Kingdom
Bolus infusion procedure requires the division of total feed [92] found that over 30% of carers for patients requiring medicine
volume into four to six feeds throughout the day. The infusion administration through enteral feeding tubes received no infor-
volume is typically between 200 and 400 mL of feed administered mation. Furthermore, that survey was undertaken through a na-
over a 15e60-minute period, depending on the patient's nutrient tional patient support group and so it could be that in a wider
needs and tolerance. Bolus infusions are used either when a patient population even fewer carers may receive information. When using
has a nasogastric tube in situ or gastrostomy tube. Feeds are an enteral feeding tube for drug administration, it is important that
administered with a 50 mL syringe with or without a plunger. Bolus the tube should not become blocked, and that those prescribing,
feeding into the stomach is considered more physiological [88]. supplying and administering the medicines are aware of their re-
There is no evidence that bolus feeding predisposes to diarrhea, sponsibility for any adverse events resulting from the use of unli-
bloating, aspiration compared to continuous feeding [88]. Contin- censed medicines or the off-label use of licensed medicines.
uous infusion of enteral formula is usually through a pump. Enteral The relevant Summary of Product Characteristics should be
feeding pumps can accurately infuse solutions [89]. The use of an consulted to help understand the legal position regarding indi-
enteral feeding pump safely allows infusion of small volume of vidual prescriptions and dosage forms. Using a product outside the
solutions for variable periods of time [90]. This is considered as an terms of the Summary of Product Characteristics carries additional
advantage in jejunal feeding as the jejunum relies on controlled responsibility that should be accepted prior to medicine prescrip-
delivery of isotonic substrates. High calorie feeds should be tion, supply or administration. Crushing medicines should be
administered preferentially using a feeding pump. avoided whenever possible because of the potential risks of expo-
Overnight pump-assisted feeding allows patients to be active sure to the drug and inaccuracies of drug dosing. The choice of
during the day to carry out work/study and other social activities. dosage form for administration through an enteral feeding tube
Pump-assisted feeding allows patients to get uninterrupted sleep also presents practical considerations. For example, whilst it is
without the need to adjust flow rates during the night. Infusion of possible that there is a generally higher incidence of tube occlu-
small volumes of solutions allows for safe jejunal infusion when sions when using solid dosage forms through nasogastric and sili-
feed tolerance is variable. Feeding pumps can be either static or cone PEG tubes care still needs to be taken with liquid medicines
mobile by placing the device in a specially designed rucksack. These since they may contain sorbitol which is reported to contribute to
can be placed on patient's back or attached e.g. to a wheelchair. diarrhea (48% of cases of osmotic diarrhea, n ¼ 14) [93], or they be
Feeding pumps have evolved to be lighter and more intuitive in of an osmolality >500e600 mOsm/kg that is sufficiently high to
their operation allowing greater ease of HEN administration by could cause gut disturbances [77].
patients and carers [89]. Combination of methods in practice (e.g. A pharmacist is in an ideal position to advise on the adminis-
overnight continuous feeding and bolus feeding during the day) tration of medicines though enteral feeding tubes and indeed the

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
10 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx

involvement of pharmacists has been recommended in national feeding tubes. For example, phenytoin has been reported to bind
guidelines [77]. The pharmacist may be able to suggest alternative directly with enteral formula, as well as separately to polyurethane
medicines or alternative patient management options when asked enteral feeding tubes lubricated with polyvinylpyrrolidone (with
to advise on the administration of a particular drug though an pH an important factor) [95]. It has also been suggested that
enteral feeding tube. polyurethane PEGs are preferable to silicone PEGs when consid-
Recommendation 35 ering medicine administration through an enteral feeding tube
Appropriate ancillaries including syringes shall be used for because of higher retention of patency and subsequent ability to
drug administration through enteral tubes using connectors of continue to use the tube [93].
a recognized standard in order to avoid misconnection errors. Recommendation 38
Grade of recommendation A (ISO standard) e Strong Drugs may be administered individually through an enteral
consensus (100% agreement) feeding tube, and the tube flushed before, between and after
Recommendation 36 each drug, using 30 mL of water.
Measures shall be taken to ensure correct drug dosing when Grade of recommendation 0 e Strong consensus (100%
drugs are administered through enteral tubes, for example agreement)
when using low-dose tip ENFit syringes. Shaking of a low-dose Commentary
ENFit tip syringe to remove a drug moat shall not be done. It is almost universally accepted that medicines should not be
Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (100% mixed before administration through an enteral feeding tube due
agreement) to risks including drugedrug interactions, and that adequate
Commentary to recommendations 35 and 36 flushing of the tube between feed and/or medications is necessary.
The recognized standard ISO 80369-3 for enteral tubes (“ENFit”) Using at least 30 mL of water for irrigation when giving medicines
has been introduced following misconnection errors, including or when flushing small diameter nasogastric tubes may reduce the
fatal errors. This standard requires that tubing and ancillaries, number of tube occlusions [93]. A survey of 105 Belgian community
including syringes, are of a specific design that cannot be connected pharmacists found that they had limited knowledge regarding the
with tubing and ancillaries intended for administration via a administration of medicines through enteral feeding tubes. For
different route. example, fewer than half knew whether or not medicines should be
Due to concerns over the accuracy of drug administration using mixed prior to administration [96]. However, the apparent lack of
ENFit syringes, and particularly with low-dose ENFit syringes, the evidence behind the correct answers to those survey questions has
design of the 1 mL and 3 mL syringes was updated to incorporate a been challenged, including because of a lack of evidence for not
low-dose syringe tip. Whilst the low-dose tip could improve dose mixing medicines before administration through an enteral feeding
accuracy it could also result in a moat of drug that could inadver- tube [97]. Another similar survey [98] by the same group, but this
tently alter the quantity of drug administered. Therefore, steps time of Belgian residential care facilities for people with intellectual
should be taken to avoid inaccurate dosing when using low-dose disability, found fewer than 40% of staff knew whether or not
ENFit tip syringes when administering drugs through enteral tubes. medicines may be mixed prior to administration, although the re-
Shaking a syringe to remove a moat of drug exposes the environ- sults are not generalizable because fewer than 20% of respondents
ment and people to the drug and could affect the dose delivered, had a nursing background and the remainder had no medical ed-
and, therefore, in the absence of evidence, it is not a recommended ucation. Furthermore, it was found in the same type of facility that
practice. recommendations for medicine administration through enteral
Recommendation 37 feeding tubes were not followed [99]. The practice included over
The necessity and appropriateness for a drug to be admin- two thirds of the prepared medicines being mixed prior to
istered through an enteral tube should be confirmed, taking administration, and in some cases up to eight medicines at once,
into account factors including any effect of the site of drug despite almost half of the total medication records containing at
delivery and potential drug interactions with enteral formula least one drugedrug interaction [100]. Factors such as limited time
and enteral feeding tubes. and limited knowledge were blamed for the inappropriate medi-
Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (100% cine administrations [101].
agreement)
Commentary 3.3. Products recommended for HEN
The site of an enteral tube tip and therefore the site of drug
delivery is an important factor when establishing likely drug effi- 3.3.1. Which nutritional products (standard formula) are
cacy. For example, a study of trovafloxacin administered into the recommended?
stomach yielded similar efficacy with or without simultaneous Recommendation 39
enteral formula, but administration through a tube directly into the Standard commercial formula enteral tube feeds can be used,
duodenum rather than through a tube into the stomach led to unless there is specific justification for a blended tube feed.
reduced drug availability [94]. Unfortunately, there was no note Grade of recommendation 0 e Strong consensus (92%
regarding the type or material of the nasogastric tube used in this agreement)
publication. Commentary
When using an enteral feeding tube for the administration of There are no fundamental differences regarding the preferred
medicines, no effect of bolus compared to continuous EN on tube nutritional products to be used to deliver HEN for patients that may
blockage has been reported (p ¼ 0.33) [93]. Nevertheless, the have benign or malignant disease. Blended tube feeds rather than
choice between bolus and continuous feeding could affect the commercial tube feeds have been used frequently. For example, in a
practical administration of particular medicines, such as medicines survey of adult Oley Foundation members, 69.5% of the 91 re-
which bind to enteral formula and therefore some medicines spondents indicated that they used blended tube feed [102]. In
administered through an enteral feeding tube may need to be another survey of blended tube feed use in the community [103], 30
administered apart from enteral formula. Specific drug interactions of 54 respondents reported improved tolerance and fewer adverse
with enteral formula that reduce drug efficacy have been reported, gut symptoms with blended tube feed whilst the remaining 24
as have drug interactions directly between medicines and enteral respondents chose not to use blended tube feed for reasons that

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx 11

included concerns over safety and a lack of knowledge regarding enriched in unsaturated fatty acids, especially mono-
their preparation. Blended tube feeds have been considered to be unsaturated fatty acids may be used for patients with diabetes.
time consuming and therefore costly to prepare, with one study Grade of recommendation 0 e Majority agreement (60%
finding that time and non-nutritional costs could account for >50% agreement)
of the total feeding cost [104]. The same study also found there to Commentary
be poor standardization of blended tube feeds, and risks of mi- Specific tube feeds with a lower sugar content for patients with
crobial contamination and product instability. It is of note that four diabetes may be used, which are reported to be comparably toler-
of the five authors of this particular study were affiliated to com- ated to standard tube feeds [112]. For example, improved glycemic
mercial EN companies. Nevertheless, others have also expressed control was found for residents with type 2 diabetes in a long-term
concern regarding higher microbial contamination of blended tube care facility who received an enteral tube feed with a third less
feed compared to commercial tube feed [105,106]. In addition, energy from sugars (replaced with lipid, 16 patients in the lower
when 203 Polish patients were switched from blended tube feed sugar group and 14 patients in the control group) [113]. The lower
administered as 50e100 mL boluses between five and six times sugar reached statistical significance for some results and tended to
each day to commercial tube feed administered as boluses or require less insulin although not statistically significant. One study
continuous infusion under the direction of a specialist, the out- participant in the higher sugar feed group did not complete the
comes included fewer hospital and intensive care admissions, and study because of uncontrolled blood glucose levels. A limitation of
less frequent pneumonia, urinary tract infection and anemia this study [113] that has previously been raised [112] is that the
requiring hospitalization [107]. In this study, a care package was proportion of tube feed received by each study group was not re-
provided to the patients in addition to the commercial tube feed ported. In another study of diabetes specific EN there was a
which complicates the interpretation of the reported outcomes reduction in both insulin requirement and in HbA1c after 84 days in
[107]. In another study, commercial tube feed was found to be patients with type 2 diabetes with neurological dysphagia [114].
relatively more beneficial over an 8-month period for patients with One of the patients in the lower sugar tube feed group had diarrhea
head and neck cancer compared to either blended tube feed or from the feed, and one of the patients in the standard sugar tube
blended diet used as a tube feed [108]. All of the study groups had feed had severe hyperglycemia “possibly related to treatment”. A
additional oral intake recommended, and therefore a consideration systematic review of diabetes-specific enteral formula (defined as
of their oral intake over the study period would have been bene- oral supplements or tube feeds containing a high proportion
ficial. Blended food, although without clear benefit compared to (>60%) of fat, fructose and fiber) found improved glycemic control
commercial food, is still occasionally used in chronic patients at compared to standard enteral formula [115].
home, but not in hospitals. If used at all, it should be administered For a fixed sugar content, increasing the fat and protein content
via a large tube (ch 14) or a PEG to prevent from clogging. of diabetes specific enteral formula may affect glycemic control. For
example, in a systematic review of the effects of different macro-
3.3.2. Which formula for special situations are needed? nutrients on postprandial glycaemia, it was found that more insulin
Recommendation 40 was required following high fat/protein meals [116].
Fiber-containing feeds shall normally be used for patients Recommendation 43
with diarrhea. For patients without diarrhea, constipation or diabetes,
Grade of recommendation A e Strong consensus (92% standard commercial tube feeds should be used according to the
agreement) direction of a specialist.
Recommendation 41 Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (96%
Fiber-containing feeds should be used for patients with agreement)
constipation. Commentary
Grade of recommendation B e Strong consensus (96% There are more limited reports for other special situations,
agreement) which include a potential role for home-prepared low iodine tube
Commentary to recommendations 40 and 41 feed for preparation for scanning and management of differenti-
In a crossover study investigating the effect of fiber in EN of ten ated thyroid carcinoma [117]. In a study of EN in patients with
medically stable residents of a chronic care facility, fiber was Crohn's disease (which is complicated by all study participants
found to nearly double both the frequency of opening bowels and being administered 200 mL of 10% w/v soybean lipid intravenously
the fecal wet weight (both p < 0.05), without diarrhea [109]. A daily for an unknown duration), elemental formula gave benefit for
reduction in measured glucose and an increase in albumin and disease remission as well as maintenance of remission compared to
hemoglobin was found when Israeli residents in long-term care elemental formula plus drug treatment (prednisolone or sulpha-
facilities were given a tube feed containing fiber rather than not salazine), drug treatment alone (and a low residue diet), or no
over an 8-week period, although the two tube feeds differed intervention [118]. A general note regarding ensuring clarity from
beyond only the fiber, for example in the density of amino acids the prescriber of nutritional goals if using modular protein sup-
and micronutrients [110]. Furthermore, the residents were not plements has been reported due to different products not being
randomized to one or other of the tube feeds. More recently, in a clinically equivalent to each other for the same quantity of amino
systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of fiber-con- acids [119]. Other reports appear to currently be less clinically
taining enteral formula relevant to both acute and chronic set- relevant. Example include: standard enteral tube feed was found to
tings, significant benefits of enteral formula containing fiber be beneficial in 14 HIV positive patients with wasting, with no
(especially fiber mixtures) were reported for patients with diar- comparator group [120]; supplementation of enteral feed with
rhea as well as a trend of benefit of enteral formula containing digestive enzymes had non-significant effects on total protein and
fiber for patients with constipation [111]. albumin levels in 16 elderly residents of a nursing care facility
Recommendation 42 [121]; and the availability of only limited information regarding
A modified enteral formula with lower sugar content, con- attempts to modify the gut microflora by the addition of fructo-
taining slowly digestible carbohydrates and a fat content oligosaccharides to tube feed [122].

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
12 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx

3.4. Monitoring and termination of HEN tube-related complications [127]. Another study, prospective, re-
ported an average 5.4 unscheduled contacts over 10.5 months for
3.4.1. When and how should patients prescribed HEN be complications [78]. A remote follow-up may prove useful: a pro-
monitored? spective study of 188 HEN patients older than 65 years showed that
Recommendation 44 the addition of a video consultation with the hospital team to a
HEN patients should be monitored for the efficacy and monthly home visit was able to reduce metabolic complications
complications of HEN, which requires a good forward planning [128].
and communication between acting persons (physicians,
nurses, caregivers etc.). 3.4.2. When should HEN be terminated?
Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (96% Recommendation 46
agreement) HEN should be terminated when the desired weight has been
Recommendation 45 reached and the patient's oral intake matches his/her mainte-
Monitoring of efficacy should be based primarily on body nance needs.
weight, body composition and hydration status, but may also Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (92%
include laboratory measurements, such as serum albumin or agreement)
transthyretin (¼prealbumin). Monitoring of complications Commentary
should include tube- and EN-associated complications. Apart from end of life care, there are several situations in which
Grade of recommendation GPP e Consensus (83% HEN will be terminated:
agreement)
Commentary to recommendations 44 and 45
Restoration of oral feeding
Monitoring should depend upon many factors, patient-related
Severe complication (intractable diarrhea, aspiration pneu-
(underlying disease, nutritional status on discharge, active treat- monia), leading to a prolonged contra-indication of HEN
ment or palliative care), and structure-related (presence or absence
Transfer to a long-term care facility
of a multidisciplinary team in charge of follow-up, homecare
Termination of HEN indicated for trophic indications (short
country legislation requiring prescription renewal at given bowel syndrome)
intervals).
It may involve the prescribing multidisciplinary team (physi- The first situation is the most frequent. Patients may evolve from
cian, dietician, nurse, pharmacist), the primary care physician and total EN to complementary EN to complete oral autonomy. A cohort
nurse, the home caregivers, as well as the patient him/herself, of 417 patients on HEN was followed for 24e103 months. HEN had
stressing the importance of training patients and/or caregivers on been stopped because of death in 75.2%, weaning in 32.6% and
caring for the tube, hygiene and safety issues and basic problem other reasons in 6.7%; only 5.5% were still dependent on HEN [26]. A
solving. Spanish cohort found in 365 HEN patients followed-up for
Monitoring will be performed in the home setting or in the 148 ± 104 days (mean ± SD) that as many patients had regained
structure where the prescription originated. It may include: oral autonomy (47.2%) as those still needing EN support (47.8%)
[22]. Two regional cohort studies (Alpes-Maritimes in France and

For efficacy: body weight, body composition (fat-free mass or Northern Alberta in Canada) report a much more frequent return to
muscle mass), hydration, muscle strength and performance, oral autonomy in patients with digestive diseases compared to
food intake, serum transthyretin (because of a much shorter patients with cancer or neurological diseases [5,26]. Follow-up of
half-life than albumin) weight, with the usual weight as a target, as well as that of oral

For tolerance: tube-related complications (leakage, obstruction, intake are therefore needed to determine when to discontinue
displacement, local stoma complications) and respiratory and HEN. No arguments are in favor of a progressive discontinuation
digestive tolerance rather than an abrupt one.
The end of life care situation has been covered by the recent
HEN aims at improving nutritional status or at least not letting it ESPEN guideline on ethical aspects of artificial nutrition and hy-
deteriorate. The prospective systematic follow-up of a Spanish dration [29], in which it is said that “in case the feasibility or effi-
cohort of 365 patients on HEN for various reasons showed after cacy of artificial nutrition is uncertain it is advisable to administer
average 148 ± 104 (mean ± SD) days an improvement of all the therapy on a trial basis. In the event of complications or if the
anthropometric (weight, arm circumference) and biochemical (al- desired success is not achieved, the attempt should be
bumin, transthyretin, transferrin, lymphocytes) parameters [22]. In discontinued.”
a prospective study of 150 patients aged 70 ± 8 years (mean ± SD)
who had a PEG tube placement for several diseases, among the 72 3.4.3. What are the main complications of HEN and how should
surviving at least 60 days there was no significant weight or serum they be managed?
albumin change after four months [123]. Among 80 patients who Recommendation 47
were randomized to receive supplemental HEN, HPN or nothing To reduce mechanical complications of HEN (blocking,
after major abdominal surgery and who were assessed up to one dislodgement) percutaneous tubes should be used instead of
year after discharge, there was a global decrease in body weight nasal tubes for long-term needs (at least 4e6 weeks).
(with however a maintained lean body mass) and an increase in Grade of recommendation B e Strong consensus (98%
serum albumin with time, with no differences between groups agreement)
[124]. A small cohort study showing in 19 HEN patients biochemical Commentary
evidence of micronutrient depletion [125] does not warrant a General EN complications are applicable to patients on HEN, and
systematic screening for such a depletion, especially as these de- can be classified as mechanic, aspiration, gastrointestinal, meta-
ficiencies usually correlate with malnutrition [126]. A retrospective bolic and stoma complications. The frequency of these complica-
study of 31 HEN patients showed that, despite a systematic tions has been studied in several retrospective and prospective
monthly follow-up by a dedicated nurse, there were an average of studies, including different type of patients and enteral accesses
2.9 unscheduled healthcare contacts over 17.5 months, mostly for [129e132].

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx 13

In a Cochrane systematic review, PEG feeding demonstrated a administration [104]. In an observational study, the use of EN for-
lower probability of intervention failure (defined as feeding inter- mula and a NST in comparison to blenderized admixtures improved
ruption, blocking or leakage of the tube, no adherence to treat- weight and decreased infectious complications, hospital admis-
ment), suggesting the endoscopic procedure is more effective and sions and costs, but did not have any effect on other complications
safer than nasogastric tube feeding [132]. This review included nine [134].
randomized controlled studies and intervention failure occurred in See also Recommendation 39.
19 of 156 patients in the PEG group and 63 of 158 patients in the Recommendation 50
nasogastric tube feeding group (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76, A HEN team should adequately care of nasogastric and
p ¼ 0.01) in favor of PEG. There were no statistically significant enteral tubes, as well as follow up the patients to decrease
differences in other complications, pneumonia and mortality be- complications and rehospitalizations.
tween groups [132]. Grade of recommendation B e Strong consensus (100%
Mechanical complications are quite frequent in patients on HEN agreement)
and include dislodgement and obstruction of the tubes. These Commentary
complications are more frequent in nasal tubes, especially nasoje- Appropriate training of the patient/caregiver and continuity of
junal tubes, than in PEG tubes [129]. In a retrospective study, pa- care after discharge from the hospital are key factors for the success
tients with neurological diseases had significantly more of HEN [135]. Most of the potential long-term complications are
complications than cancer patients, with mechanical complications exclusively dependent on the quality of aftercare given to the
being the most frequent [130]. The authors attribute their results to tubing system and can be effectively avoided if the proper measures
the higher use of medications in neurological patients. Routine are taken. In a prospective study including 108 elderly patients in
water flushing after feedings can prevent tube occlusion and is Italy, followed for twelve months, the authors found a low rate of
especially relevant in small-caliber tubes, like jejunostomies. If the complications, most of them mild. The mortality after first month
tube does become clogged, simple water flushing can help regain and at one year was 7.4% and 23.1%, respectively, with a mean
patency. In cases of persistent obstruction, some experts, but not survival of 674 days that is almost three times longer than in the
all, recommend infusion with cola-containing carbonated drinks or literature. The authors attribute their better results regarding other
pancreatic enzymes may unclog the tube [133]. However, this series of patients to the continuity of care by the same nutrition
maneuver is not recommended for several reasons, one being the team [136]. In a quasi-experimental research in Taiwan with pre-
sugar content of sodas enhancing the risk of tube contamination test/post-test evaluations in 233 patients with nasogastric tube
with bacteria. Others recommend the usage of 8.4% w/v sodium feeding, systematic nursing intervention, including comprehensive
bicarbonate solution to unblock the tube; however, this is also not educational pamphlets and video education in comparison to
evidence-based medicine. If necessary, a guide wire or commer- routine education, significantly improved the knowledge and skills
cially available tube declogger can be used by an expert in case of of primary caregivers and decreased the incidence of 3-months
PEG tubes [42]. Aspiration can occur in patients who are unable to complications [137]. In the absence of adequate gastrostomy
protect their airways, especially patients with neurological prob- aftercare, 6-months hospital readmission rates are as high as 23%.
lems. The incidence of aspiration has been reported to reach 20%. In a prospective study with 313 gastrostomy patients followed by a
This can lead to pneumonia, respiratory failure, or death. Various HEN team, 371 complications were encountered and most of them
strategies to reduce aspiration have been studied. These include were resolved without hospitalization. Gastrostomy-related hos-
elevation of the head of the bed, post-pyloric feeding (by nasoje- pital readmissions were significantly reduced from 23 to 2%
junal, percutaneous gastrojejunostomy, or PEJ), and administration (p < 0.0001) [138]. In an observational multicenter study in Poland,
of motility agents to promote gastric emptying [42,133]. Gastroin- the specialized HEN care program reduced morbidity and costs
testinal complications include constipation, diarrhea, vomits and related to long-term EN at home [134]. In a randomized, prospec-
abdominal pain. These complications may be caused by the un- tive study in 100 patients older than 65 years treated with HEN in
derlying disease, the drug treatment, the enteral formula and the Italy, a video consultation between home visiting staff and hospital
administration method [42,133]. Metabolic complications include physicians specialized in clinical nutrition during monthly home
hyperglycemia, electrolytic disturbances, micronutrient deficiency, visits was associated with a reduction of metabolic complications
and refeeding syndrome [42,133]. Stoma complications are [128].
frequent in patients with gastrostomy and include excessive gran-
ulation tissue, leakage, peristomal infection and the BBS [42,56]. 3.4.4. When and how should QoL be assessed in these patients?
See also Recommendations 7 and 8. Recommendation 51
Recommendation 48 During HEN treatment QoL should be measured periodically.
As home-made blenderized admixtures are less effective Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (92%
than EN formula or commercially produced ‘whole food’ solu- agreement)
tions, they should not be utilized in patients on HEN. Commentary
Grade of recommendation GPP e Majority agreement (63% QoL is one of the patient-related outcomes necessary to evaluate
agreement) the effect of the treatments. HEN has a considerable physical, social
Recommendation 49 and psychological effect on the lives of patients and their care-
As home-made blenderized admixtures are less safe than EN givers. Support at the time of tube placement, and regular ongoing
formula or commercially produced ‘whole food’ solutions, they support, can help to minimize the impact on both, enabling them to
should not be utilized in patients on HEN. make the most of their daily lives, sleep better, and enjoy an overall
Grade of recommendation GPP e Consensus (76% agreement) higher QoL [139].
Commentary to recommendations 48 and 49 QoL should be measured at the beginning of HEN and periodi-
Blenderized or homebrew tube diets are still popular in many cally during the treatment to evaluate the impact of this inter-
countries due to its low cost in comparison to enteral formula. vention. In these patients QoL has been investigated using mainly
However, blenderized formulas are not standardized regarding generic questionnaires, such as SF-36, SF-12, WHO QoL-BREF and
macro and micronutrients composition and may entail a higher risk EQ-5D, showing a lower value than in the general population.
of contamination, as well as more cumbersome handling and Among the main factors than can influence HEN patient's QoL are

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
14 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx

the underlying disease, age, gender and presence of caregiver. In a There are increasing numbers of adult patients who require
study with 38 long-term HEN patients in France, QoL was better in continuing EN support following discharge from hospital into
younger patients, without cancer and with more than one caregiver community settings [79,150]. HEN refers to nutrition provided
[140]. In this study, most of the participants improved their QoL through a feeding tube directly into the gastro-intestinal tract
following the initiation of HEN. In a multicenter study in Spain when an individual cannot ingest, chew or swallow food but can
involving 267 patients, women and patients with neurological digest and absorb nutrients in the patient's home. It allows the
diseases rated a significantly lower value on their QoL compared to patient to return to a familiar environment where support can be
those of other groups [141]. In a study of 104 patients with PEG in provided by the patients itself, family, friends or professional carers
Sweden, those with cancer diagnosis reported that PEG feeding [89,90]. The instruction should be given in the hospital setting or at
interfered with their oral feeding more than patients with a home. Written information should be provided including contact
neurological disease (p ¼ 0.009) [142]. However, in a similar study information in case of complications and/or further clarifications
of 122 participants in Australia there were no significant differences needed [139,151e154]. For further details, see Table 6.
in QoL across different clinical areas [143]. The participants in this
study suggested some improvements to the HEN service, including 3.5.2. What are the infrastructure requirements at home to safely
sooner follow-up after hospital discharge, more frequent reviews perform HEN?
for long-term patients, and the availability of a multidisciplinary Recommendation 55
team to manage HEN patients. Also, the caregiver's evaluation can All healthcare professionals who are directly involved in
be useful to have an approximation to the patient's perception patient care should receive education and training, relevant to
when he/she does not have the ability to communicate [144]. their duties, on the different aspects related to the safe provi-
Recommendation 52 sion of HEN and the importance of providing adequate
For evaluating QoL in HEN patients, validated specific ques- nutrition.
tionnaires should be used. Grade of recommendation B e Strong consensus (100%
Grade of recommendation GPP eConsensus (88% agreement) agreement)
Commentary Recommendation 56
Patient's Reported Outcomes Measures should be developed Healthcare professionals should ensure that all people who
through a standardized process [145]. The process of validation of need nutrition support receive coordinated care from a multi-
these tools entails the measure of the following psychometric disciplinary NST.
properties (feasibility, reliability or reproducibility, responsiveness, Grade of recommendation B e Strong consensus (100%
determination of the minimal clinically significant difference, and agreement)
validity). To measure QoL in HEN patients we can use generic or Recommendation 57
specific questionnaires. Generic tools lack sensitivity to reflect pa- All hospitals who discharge patients with HEN should
tients' problems and differences in QoL between subgroups ac- employ at least one specialized nutrition support nurse or die-
cording to diseases or during the follow-up. Specific questionnaires tician. Ideally, these hospitals should have a NST working within
are developed from patients' symptoms, limitations, and problems the clinical governance framework.
in their daily life and are more sensitive to changes. To study QoL in Grade of recommendation B e Strong consensus (96%
HEN, some authors have used specific questionnaires for different agreement)
pathologies (IBDQ, head and neck cancer QOL-EF, EORTC QLQ-C30) Recommendation 58
[146,147]. There are other specific questionnaires for PEG but with The environment for patients receiving HEN should be safe in
some methodological limitations. A specific questionnaire to eval- order to administer the EN without the risk of complications.
uate QoL in patients on HEN regardless of the underlying disease Grade of recommendation B e Strong consensus (100%
and route of administrations has been validated in a Spanish pop- agreement)
ulation in a multicentric study including 355 subjects. This ques- Recommendation 59
tionnaire, NutriQoL®, consists of 17 items and evaluates QoL in two Hygiene standards should be established to prevent
dimensions (physical performance, daily life activities, and social contamination of the home enteral product and to prevent
aspects). This questionnaire is reported to be valid, reliable and HEN-related infections.
even if lowly sensitive to change it seems to be useful to measure Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (100%
QoL in this population [148,149]. agreement)
Recommendation 60
3.5. Structural requirements to perform HEN All patients receiving HEN should have access to a profes-
sional for evaluation of the procedure and, especially in case of
3.5.1. How and what to teach the patient and his family? complications or emergencies, for adequate intervention.
Recommendation 53 Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (100%
HEN should be standardized and coordinated by a multidis- agreement)
ciplinary NST (physician, nurse, dietician, pharmacist) as this Commentary to recommendations 55e60
increases the quality of the measures, reduces the complication The number of patients receiving HEN has increased consider-
rates and thus makes a significant contribution to improve pa- ably in recent years [79]. It is now estimated that more than twice
tients QoL and to the cost-effectiveness of the measures. as many patients receive EN in the community compared with
Grade of recommendation B e Strong consensus (96% those in hospital [150]. HEN is a complex therapy and should be
agreement) closely monitored [150], otherwise serious complications can occur,
Recommendation 54 like aspiration pneumonia, dislocated tubes, gastrointestinal com-
All information related to HEN should be provided not only plications, etc. Treatment is usually initiated in secondary care, but
verbally but also in writing or pictures. general practitioners can also refer patients for elective HEN with
Grade of recommendation B e Strong consensus (100% outpatient feeding tube placement. PEG tubes are the easiest
agreement) feeding tubes to manage in the community. All hospitals who
Commentary to recommendations 53 and 54 discharge patients with HEN should employ at least one specialist

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx 15

nutrition support nurse and a dietician [151]. These hospitals by the ESPEN guideline officers and, in cases of doubts, by the
should have a nutrition steering committee providing protocols for ESPEN executive. None of the expert panel had to be excluded from
safe HEN. The composition of this team may differ according to the working group or from co-authorship because of serious con-
setting and local arrangements but should consist at least a flicts. The conflict of interest forms are stored at the ESPEN guide-
physician, a dietician, a nutrition support nurse and if possible a line office and can be reviewed by ESPEN members with legitimate
pharmacist and physiotherapist. Close collaboration with the home interest upon request to the ESPEN executive.
physician is important for follow up and in case of complications.
Educational intervention (for example, three 1-week modular Acknowledgement
courses over six months) [135] for all healthcare professionals, in
particular medical, dietetic and nursing staff, including those who The authors thank Anna Schweinlin for expert assistance in this
work with people with dementia, is recommended. The effect on guideline project.
patient care like nutritional status, length of hospital stay, fre-
quency of general practitioner visits, complications and QoL should Appendix A. Supplementary data
be compared with no formal education [139]. Most countries have
facility companies (“home care providers”) who provide patients at Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
home with the enteral formulas, pumps and caring utensils [152]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2019.04.022.
Reimbursement of enteral products, utensils and lease of pumps
should be discussed with insurance companies or government in References
order to be able to provide HEN at home for all patients [152,153].
[1] Bischoff SC, Singer P, Koller M, Barazzoni R, Cederholm T, van Gossum A.
3.5.3. Which healthcare professionals should be involved in the Standard operating procedures for ESPEN guidelines and consensus papers.
Clin Nutr 2015;34:1043e51.
management of HEN? [2] Bischoff S, Arends J, Do€rje F, Engeser P, Hanke G, Ko
€chling K, et al. S3-Leitlinie
Recommendation 61 der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Ern€ ahrungsmedizin (DGEM) in Zusamme-
For optimal management of HEN, a NST approach may narbeit mit der GESKES und der AKE. Aktuelle Ern€ ahrungsmed 2013;38:
e101e54.
comprise e in addition to a physician, a dietician/nutritionist [3] Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). SIGN 50: a guideline
and a nurse e other allied healthcare professionals (for developer's handbook. Revised version. Edinburgh: SIGN; 2014.
example, speech and language therapists, physiotherapists and [4] Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesell-
schaften (AWMF) e Sta €ndige Kommission Leitlinien. AWMF-regelwerk
occupational therapists, and pharmacists as necessary).
„Leitlinien“. 2012.
Grade of recommendation GPP e Strong consensus (97% [5] Cawsey SI, Soo J, Gramlich LM. Home enteral nutrition: outcomes relative to
agreement) indication. Nutr Clin Pract 2010;25:296e300.
Commentary [6] Arends J, Bachmann P, Baracos V, Barthelemy N, Bertz H, Bozzetti F, et al.
ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. Clin Nutr 2017;36:11e48.
The HEN team provides support to patients who are being fed [7] Arends J, Baracos V, Bertz H, Bozzetti F, Calder PC, Deutz NEP, et al. ESPEN
via enteral feeding tube in the community. However, the organi- expert group recommendations for action against cancer-related malnutri-
zation of services to support the increasing number of people tion. Clin Nutr 2017;36:1187e96.
[8] Arends J, Bodoky G, Bozzetti F, Fearon K, Muscaritoli M, Selga G, et al. ESPEN
receiving HEN varies across regions. UK NICE guidelines outline guidelines on enteral nutrition: non-surgical oncology. Clin Nutr 2006;25:
that people receiving HEN in the community should “be supported 245e59.
by a coordinated multidisciplinary team” [150]. It seems that a [9] Bozzetti F, Arends J, Lundholm K, Micklewright A, Zurcher G, Muscaritoli M.
ESPEN guidelines on parenteral nutrition: non-surgical oncology. Clin Nutr
standardized care coordination model involving a multidisciplinary 2009;28:445e54.
team could be improve outcomes and reduce health care related [10] Kondrup J, Rasmussen HH, Hamberg O, Stanga Z. Nutritional risk screening
costs. Nevertheless, inadequate data are available to determine (NRS 2002): a new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials.
Clin Nutr 2003;22:321e36.
specifically the degree of effectiveness of any such intervention or
[11] Gomes F, Schuetz P, Bounoure L, Austin P, Ballesteros-Pomar M,
team composition. The benefits of introducing community NSTs Cederholm T, et al. ESPEN guidelines on nutritional support for polymorbid
mainly comes from observational work that has suggested benefit internal medicine patients. Clin Nutr 2018;37:336e53.
[12] Kondrup J, Bak L, Hansen BS, Ipsen B, Ronneby H. Outcome from nutritional
(e.g. audits following the introduction of expert review for HEN) in
support using hospital food. Nutrition 1998;14:319e21.
terms of reduced costs and improve outcome. In different coun- [13] Jensen GL, Mirtallo J, Compher C, Dhaliwal R, Forbes A, Grijalba RF, et al.
tries, nurses and dieticians were the most listed team members of a Adult starvation and disease-related malnutrition: a proposal for etiology-
multidisciplinary team, whereas primary care physicians and based diagnosis in the clinical practice setting from the International
consensus guideline committee. Clin Nutr 2010;29:151e3.
physician specialists were included in most of the different ap- [14] Bowrey DJ, Baker M, Halliday V, Thomas AL, Pulikottil-Jacob R, Smith K, et al.
proaches for a multidisciplinary team too. In some cases, language A randomised controlled trial of six weeks of home enteral nutrition versus
or speech specialists, and other healthcare workers were also standard care after oesophagectomy or total gastrectomy for cancer: report
on a pilot and feasibility study. Trials 2015;16:531.
included [155]. [15] Howard L. Home parenteral and enteral nutrition in cancer patients. Cancer
1993;72:3531e41.
Funding statement [16] Takagi S, Utsunomiya K, Kuriyama S, Yokoyama H, Takahashi S, Iwabuchi M,
et al. Effectiveness of an 'half elemental diet' as maintenance therapy for
Crohn's disease: a randomized-controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther
This guideline was solely financed by ESPEN, the European So- 2006;24:1333e40.
ciety for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. [17] Wu Z, Wu M, Wang Q, Zhan T, Wang L, Pan S, et al. Home enteral nutrition
after minimally invasive esophagectomy can improve quality of life and
reduce the risk of malnutrition. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2018;27:129.
Conflicts of interest [18] Yu F-J, Shih H-Y, Wu C-Y, Chuang Y-S, Lee J-Y, Li H-P, et al. Enteral nutrition
and quality of life in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy for esophageal
carcinoma: a comparison of nasogastric tube, esophageal stent, and ostomy
The expert members of the working group were accredited by
tube feeding. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;88:21e31. e4.
the ESPEN Guidelines Group, the ESPEN Education and Clinical [19] Klek S, Pawlowska D, Dziwiszek G, Komon
H, Compala P, Nawojski M. The
Practice Committee, and the ESPEN executive. All expert members evolution of home enteral nutrition (HEN) in Poland during five years after
have declared their individual conflicts of interest according to the implementation: a multicentre stud. Nutr Hosp 2015;32:196e201.
[20] Paccagnella A, Marcon ML, Baruffi C, Giometto M, Mauri A, Vigo C, et al.
rules of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Enteral nutrition at home and in nursing homes: an 11-year (2002e2012)
(ICMJE). If potential conflicts were indicated, they were reviewed epidemiological analysis. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol 2016;62:1e10.

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
16 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx

[21] de Luis DA, Aller R, de Luis J, Izaola O, Romero E, Terroba MC, et al. Clinical [48] Yuan Y, Zhao Y, Xie T, Hu Y. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus
and biochemical characteristics of patients with home enteral nutrition in an percutaneous radiological gastrostomy for swallowing disturbances.
area of Spain. Eur J Clin Nutr 2003;57:612e5. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;2:Cd009198.
[22] de Luis DA, Aller R, Izaola O, Terroba MC, Cabezas G, Cuellar LA. Experience of [49] Lim JH, Choi SH, Lee C, Seo JY, Kang HY, Yang JI, et al. Thirty-day mortality
6 years with home enteral nutrition in an area of Spain. Eur J Clin Nutr after percutaneous gastrostomy by endoscopic versus radiologic placement:
2006;60:553e7. a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intest Res 2016;14:333e42.
[23] De Luis DA, Izaola O, Cuellar LA, Terroba MC, Cabezas G, De La Fuente B. [50] Vidhya C, Phoebe D, Dhina C, Jayne S, Robert F. Percutaneous endoscopic
Experience over 12 years with home enteral nutrition in a healthcare area of gastrostomy (PEG) versus radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG): a
Spain. J Hum Nutr Diet 2013;26(Suppl 1):39e44. comparison of outcomes at an Australian teaching hospital. Clin Nutr ESPEN
[24] Gaggiotti G, Ambrosi S, Spazzafumo L, Sgattoni C, Orlandoni P, Rosati S. Two- 2018;23:136e40.
year outcome data from the Italian home enteral nutrition (IHEN) register. [51] Burkitt P, Carter LM, Smith AB, Kanatas A. Outcomes of percutaneous
Clin Nutr 1995;14(Suppl 1):2e5. endoscopic gastrostomy and radiologically inserted gastrostomy in patients
[25] Paccagnella A, Baruffi C, Pizzolato D, Favaro V, Marcon ML, Morello M, et al. with head and neck cancer: a systematic review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg
Home enteral nutrition in adults: a five-year (2001e2005) epidemiological 2011;49:516e20.
analysis. Clin Nutr 2008;27:378e85. [52] Odedra D, Nasirzadeh R, Menard A. Safety of outpatient vs inpatient percu-
[26] Schneider SM, Raina C, Pugliese P, Pouget I, Rampal P, Hebuterne X. Outcome taneous radiological gastrostomy tubes in patients with head and neck
of patients treated with home enteral nutrition. J Parenter Enteral Nutr cancers. Can Assoc Radiol J 2016;67:416e9.
2001;25:203e9. [53] Itkin M, DeLegge MH, Fang JC, McClave SA, Kundu S, d'Othee BJ, et al.
[27] Wanden-Berghe C, Luengo LM, Alvarez J, Burgos R, Cuerda C, Matia P, et al. Multidisciplinary practical guidelines for gastrointestinal access for enteral
Spanish home enteral nutrition registry of the year 2014 and 2015 from the nutrition and decompression from the society of interventional radiology
NADYA-SENPE group. Nutr Hosp 2017;34:15e8. and American gastroenterological association (AGA) Institute, with
[28] Gripp S, Moeller S, Bolke E, Schmitt G, Matuschek C, Asgari S, et al. Survival endorsement by Canadian interventional radiological association (CIRA) and
prediction in terminally ill cancer patients by clinical estimates, laboratory cardiovascular and interventional radiological society of Europe (CIRSE).
tests, and self-rated anxiety and depression. J Clin Oncol 2007;25: Gastroenterology 2011;141:742e65.
3313e20. [54] Miller KR, McClave SA, Kiraly LN, Martindale RG, Benns MV. A tutorial on
[29] Druml C, Ballmer PE, Druml W, Oehmichen F, Shenkin A, Singer P, et al. enteral access in adult patients in the hospitalized setting. J Parenter Enteral
ESPEN guideline on ethical aspects of artificial nutrition and hydration. Clin Nutr 2014;38:282e95.
Nutr 2016;35:545e56. [55] Roveron G, Antonini M, Barbierato M, Calandrino V, Canese G, Chiurazzi LF,
[30] Burgos R, Breton I, Cereda E, Desport JC, Dziewas R, Genton L, et al. ESPEN et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the nursing management of percuta-
guideline clinical nutrition in neurology. Clin Nutr 2018;37:354e96. neous endoscopic gastrostomy and jejunostomy (PEG/PEJ) in adult patients:
[31] Williams T. Nasogastric tube feeding: a safe option for patients? Br J Com- an executive summary. J Wound, Ostomy Cont Nurs 2018;45:326e34.
munity Nurs 2016:S28e31. Suppl Nutrition. [56] Lo€ser C, Aschl G, Hebuterne X, Mathus-Vliegen EM, Muscaritoli M, Niv Y,
[32] Corry J, Poon W, McPhee N, Milner AD, Cruickshank D, Porceddu SV, et al. et al. ESPEN guidelines on artificial enteral nutrition–percutaneous endo-
Prospective study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes versus scopic gastrostomy (PEG). Clin Nutr 2005;24:848e61.
nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in patients with head and neck cancer [57] National Nurses Nutrition Group (NNNG). Exit site management for gastro-
undergoing (chemo)radiation. Head Neck 2009;31:867e76. stomy tubes in adults and children. UK. 2013.
[33] Nugent B, Lewis S, O'Sullivan JM. Enteral feeding methods for nutritional [58] Blumenstein I, Borger D, Loitsch S, Bott C, Tessmer A, Hartmann F, et al.
management in patients with head and neck cancers being treated with A glycerin hydrogel-based wound dressing prevents peristomal infections
radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013: after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): a prospective, random-
Cd007904. ized study. Nutr Clin Pract 2012;27:422e5.
[34] Paleri V, Roe JW, Strojan P, Corry J, Gregoire V, Hamoir M, et al. Strategies to [59] Aschl G, Kirchgatterer A, Fleischer M, Hinterreiter M, Hubner D,
reduce long-term postchemoradiation dysphagia in patients with head and Kranewitter W, et al. The frequency of wound infections after PEG-
neck cancer: an evidence-based review. Head Neck 2014;36:431e43. placement and utilization of glycogel wound dressing: a randomized
[35] Wang J, Liu M, Liu C, Ye Y, Huang G. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy controlled trial. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2008;120:224e7.
versus nasogastric tube feeding for patients with head and neck cancer: a [60] Pars H, Çavusoglu H. Effects of 3 different methods of care on the peristomal
systematic review. J Radiat Res 2014;55:559e67. skin integrity of children with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes:
[36] Gomes Jr CA, Andriolo RB, Bennett C, Lustosa SA, Matos D, Waisberg DR, et al. a prospective randomized controlled trial. Adv Skin Wound Care 2018;31:
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for 172e81.
adults with swallowing disturbances. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015: [61] National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA). Rapid response report NPSA/2010/
Cd008096. RRR010: early detection of complications after gastrostomy. UK. 2010.
[37] Tabrizi R, Hosseinpour S, Taghizadeh F. Feeding in oral cancer patients after [62] Cyrany J, Rejchrt S, Kopacova M, Bures J. Buried bumper syndrome: a
massive ablative surgery: percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or naso- complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. World J Gastro-
gastric tube. J Craniofac Surg 2016;27:1010e1. enterol 2016;22:618e27.
[38] Jaafar MH, Mahadeva S, Morgan K, Tan MP. Percutaneous endoscopic gas- [63] Schrag SP, Sharma R, Jaik NP, Seamon MJ, Lukaszczyk JJ, Martin ND, et al.
trostomy versus nasogastric feeding in older individuals with non-stroke Complications related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes.
dysphagia: a systematic review. J Nutr Health Aging 2015;19:190e7. A comprehensive clinical review. J Gastrointest Liver Dis 2007;16:407e18.
[39] Fay DE, Poplausky M, Gruber M, Lance P. Long-term enteral feeding: a [64] Bennell J. Buried bumper syndrome: do we have enough evidence? Br J
retrospective comparison of delivery via percutaneous endoscopic gastro- Community Nurs 2018;23:S28e30.
stomy and nasoenteric tubes. Am J Gastroenterol 1991;86:1604e9. [65] McClave SA, Jafri NS. Spectrum of morbidity related to bolster placement at
[40] Dwolatzky T, Berezovski S, Friedmann R, Paz J, Clarfield AM, Stessman J, et al. time of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: buried bumper syndrome to
A prospective comparison of the use of nasogastric and percutaneous leakage and peritonitis. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2007;17:731e46.
endoscopic gastrostomy tubes for long-term enteral feeding in older people. [66] McClave SA, Chang WK. Complications of enteral access. Gastrointest Endosc
Clin Nutr 2001;20:535e40. 2003;58:739e51.
[41] McClave SA, DiBaise JK, Mullin GE, Martindale RG. ACG clinical guideline: [67] Zopf Y, Konturek P, Nuernberger A, Maiss J, Zenk J, Iro H, et al. Local infection
nutrition therapy in the adult hospitalized patient. Am J Gastroenterol after placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes: a prospec-
2016;111:315e34. tive study evaluating risk factors. Can J Gastroenterol 2008;22:987e91.
[42] Toussaint E, Van Gossum A, Ballarin A, Arvanitakis M. Enteral access in [68] Lynch CR, Fang JC. Prevention and management of complications of percu-
adults. Clin Nutr 2015;34:350e8. taneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. Practical Gastroenterol
[43] Bravo JG, Ide E, Kondo A, de Moura DT, de Moura ET, Sakai P, et al. Percu- 2004;28:66e77.
taneous endoscopic versus surgical gastrostomy in patients with benign and [69] Lansdown AB, Mirastschijski U, Stubbs N, Scanlon E, Ågren MS. Zinc in
malignant diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinics (Sao wound healing: theoretical, experimental, and clinical aspects. Wound
Paulo, Brazil) 2016;71:169e78. Repair Regen 2007;15:2e16.
[44] Ljungdahl M, Sundbom M. Complication rate lower after percutaneous [70] Tsang TK, Eaton D, Falconio MA. Percutaneous ostomy dilation: a technique
endoscopic gastrostomy than after surgical gastrostomy: a prospective, for dilating the closed percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy sites and
randomized trial. Surg Endosc 2006;20:1248e51. reinserting gastrostomies. Gastrointest Endosc 1989;35:336e7.
[45] Rustom IK, Jebreel A, Tayyab M, England RJ, Stafford ND. Percutaneous [71] Rahnemai-Azar AA, Rahnemaiazar AA, Naghshizadian R, Kurtz A, Farkas DT.
endoscopic, radiological and surgical gastrostomy tubes: a comparison study Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: indications, technique, complications
in head and neck cancer patients. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:463e6. and management. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:7739e51.
[46] Croshaw RL, Nottingham JM. Laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous endoscopic [72] Pearce CB, Goggin PM, Collett J, Smith L, Duncan HD. The 'cut and push'
gastrostomy: its role in providing enteric access when percutaneous endo- method of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube removal. Clin Nutr
scopic gastrostomy is not possible. Am Surg 2006;72:1222e4. 2000;19:133e5.
[47] Serrano Aguayo P, Gros Herguido N, Parejo Campos J, Barranco Moreno A, [73] Agha A, AlSaudi D, Furnari M, Abdulhadi Ali MM, Morched Chakik R,
Tous Romero MDC, Pereira Cunill JL, et al. New laparoscopic assisted Alsaudi I, et al. Feasibility of the cut-and-push method for removing large-
percutaneous gastrostomy. Description and comparison with others gas- caliber soft percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy devices. Nutr Clin Pract
trostomy types. Clin Nutr ESPEN 2016;16:24e9. 2013;28:490e2.

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx 17

[74] Villela EL, Sakai P, Almeida MR, Moura EG, Faintuch J. Endoscopic gastro- [104] Borghi R, Dutra Araujo T, Airoldi Vieira RI, Theodoro de Souza T,
stomy replacement tubes: long-term randomized trial with five silicone Waitzberg DL. ILSI Task Force on enteral nutrition; estimated composition
commercial models. Clin Nutr 2014;33:221e5. and costs of blenderized diets. Nutr Hosp 2013;28:2033e8.
[75] Hull MA, Rawlings J, Murray FE, Field J, McIntyre AS, Mahida YR, et al. Audit [105] Vieira MMC, Santos VFN, Bottoni A, Morais TB. Nutritional and microbio-
of outcome of long-term enteral nutrition by percutaneous endoscopic logical quality of commercial and homemade blenderized whole food enteral
gastrostomy. Lancet 1993;341:869e72. diets for home-based enteral nutritional therapy in adults. Clin Nutr
[76] Lee JH, Kim JJ, Kim YH, Jang JK, Son HJ, Peck KR, et al. Increased risk of 2016;09.
peristomal wound infection after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in [106] Anonymous. "Home brew" compared with commercial preparation for
patients with diabetes mellitus. Dig Liver Dis 2002;34:857e61. enteral feeding. Br Med J Clin Res Ed 1982;284:981e2.
[77] Boullata JI, Carrera AL, Harvey L, Escuro AA, Hudson L, Mays A, et al. ASPEN [107] Klek S, Szybinski P, Sierzega M, Szczepanek K, Sumlet M, Kupiec M, et al.
safe practices for enteral nutrition therapy. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2017;41: Commercial enteral formulas and nutrition support teams improve the
15e103. outcome of home enteral tube feeding. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2011;35:
[78] Crosby J, Duerksen DR. A prospective study of tube- and feeding-related 380e5.
complications in patients receiving long-term home enteral nutrition. [108] Papakostas P, Tsaousi G, Stavrou G, Rachovitsas D, Tsiropoulos G, Rova C,
J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2007;31:274e7. et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding of locally advanced oro-
[79] Best C, Hitchings H. Enteral tube feedingefrom hospital to home. Br J Nurs pharygo-laryngeal cancer patients: blenderized or commercial food? Oral
2010;19(174):6e9. Oncol 2017;74:135e41.
[80] Stroud M, Duncan H, Nightingale J. Guidelines for enteral feeding in adult [109] Zarling EJ, Edison T, Berger S, Leya J, DeMeo M. Effect of dietary oat and soy
hospital patients. Gut 2003;52(Suppl 7):vii1e12. fiber on bowel function and clinical tolerance in a tube feeding dependent
[81] Szary NM, Arif M, Matteson ML, Choudhary A, Puli SR, Bechtold ML. Enteral population. J Am Coll Nutr 1994;13:565e8.
feeding within three hours after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy [110] Kagansky M, Rimon E. Is there a difference in metabolic outcome between
placement: a meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2011;45:e34e8. different enteral formulas? J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2007;31:320e3.
[82] Westaby D, Young A, O'Toole P, Smith G, Sanders DS. The provision of a [111] Elia M, Engfer MB, Green CJ, Silk DBA. Systematic review and meta-analysis:
percutaneously placed enteral tube feeding service. Gut 2010;59: the clinical and physiological effects of fibre-containing enteral formulae.
1592e605. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008;27:120e45.
[83] Halliday V, Baker M, Thomas AL, Bowrey D. Patient and family caregivers' [112] Hise ME, Fuhrman MP. The effect of diabetes-specific enteral formulae on
experiences of living with a jejunostomy feeding tube After surgery for clinical and glycemic indicators. Practical Gastroenterol 2009:20.
esophagogastric cancer. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2017;41:837e43. [113] Craig LD, Nicholson S, Silverstone FA, Kennedy RD, Coble Voss A, Allison S.
[84] Abu-Hilal M, Hemandas AK, McPhail M, Jain G, Panagiotopoulou I, Scibelli T, Use of a reduced-carbohydrate, modified-fat enteral formula for improving
et al. A comparative analysis of safety and efficacy of different methods of metabolic control and clinical outcomes in long-term care residents with
tube placement for enteral feeding following major pancreatic resection. A type 2 diabetes: results of a pilot trial. Nutrition 1998;14:529e34.
non-randomized study. Jop 2010;11:8e13. [114] Pohl M, Mayr P, Mertl-Roetzer M, Lauster F, Lerch M, Eriksen J, et al. Gly-
[85] Han-Geurts IJ, Hop WC, Verhoef C, Tran KT, Tilanus HW. Randomized clinical caemic control in type II diabetic tube-fed patients with a new enteral for-
trial comparing feeding jejunostomy with nasoduodenal tube placement in mula low in carbohydrates and high in monounsaturated fatty acids: a
patients undergoing oesophagectomy. Br J Surg 2007;94:31e5. randomised controlled trial. Eur J Clin Nutr 2005;59:1221e32.
[86] Weijs TJ, Berkelmans GH, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Ruurda JP, van [115] Elia M, Ceriello A, Laube H, Sinclair AJ, Engfer M, Stratton RJ. Enteral nutri-
Hillegersberg R, Soeters PB, et al. Routes for early enteral nutrition after tional support and use of diabetes-specific formulas for patients with dia-
esophagectomy. A systematic review. Clin Nutr 2015;34:1e6. betes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2005;28:
[87] Stavroulakis T, McDermott CJ. Enteral feeding in neurological disorders. 2267e79.
Practical Neurol 2016;16:352e61. [116] Bell KJ, Smart CE, Steil GM, Brand-Miller JC, King B, Wolpert HA. Impact of fat,
[88] Scott R, Bowling TE. Enteral tube feeding in adults. J R Coll Phys Edinb protein, and glycemic index on postprandial glucose control in type 1 dia-
2015;45:49e54. betes: implications for intensive diabetes management in the continuous
[89] White H, King L. Enteral feeding pumps: efficacy, safety, and patient glucose monitoring era. Diabetes Care 2015;38:1008e15.
acceptability. Med Dev (Auckland, NZ) 2014;7:291e8. [117] Ain KB, Dewitt PA, Gardner TG, Berryman SW. Low-iodine tube-feeding diet
[90] Blumenstein I, Shastri YM, Stein J. Gastroenteric tube feeding: techniques, for iodine-131 scanning and therapy. Clin Nucl Med 1994;19:504e7.
problems and solutions. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:8505e24. [118] Hirakawa H, Fukuda Y, Tanida N, Hosomi M, Shimoyama T. Home elemental
[91] Lord LM. Enteral access devices: types, function, care, and challenges. Nutr enteral hyperalimentation (HEEH) for the maintenance of remission in pa-
Clin Pract 2018;33:16e38. tients with Crohn's disease. Gastroenterol Jpn 1993;28:379e84.
[92] Alsaeed D, Furniss D, Blandford A, Smith F, Orlu M. Carers' experiences of [119] Castellanos VH, Litchford MD, Campbell WW. Modular protein supple-
home enteral feeding: a survey exploring medicines administration chal- ments and their application to long-term care. Nutr Clin Pract 2006;21:
lenges and strategies. J Clin Pharm Ther 2018;19:19. 485e504.
[93] Phillips NM, Nay R. Nursing administration of medication via enteral tubes in [120] Suttmann U, Selberg O, Muller MJ, Schlesinger A, Gebel M, Manns MP, et al.
adults: a systematic review. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2007;5:324e53. Home enteral nutrition in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syn-
[94] Vincent J, Teng R, Pelletier SM, Willavize SA, Friedman HL. The bioavailability drome. Clin Nutr 1993;12:287e92.
of nasogastric versus tablet-form oral trovafloxacin in healthy subjects. Am J [121] Glade MJ, Kendra D, Kaminski Jr MV. Improvement in protein utilization in
Surg 1998;176. 23S-6S. nursing-home patients on tube feeding supplemented with an enzyme
[95] Fleisher D, Sheth N, Kou JH. Phenytoin interaction with enteral feedings product derived from Aspergillus Niger and bromelain. Nutrition 2001;17:
administered through nasogastric tubes. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1990;14: 348e50.
513e6. [122] Whelan K, Judd PA, Preedy VR, Taylor MA. Enteral feeding: the effect on
[96] Joos E, Verbeke S, Mehuys E, Van Bocxlaer J, Remon JP, Van Winckel M, et al. faecal output, the faecal microflora and SCFA concentrations. Proc Nutr Soc
Medication administration via enteral feeding tube: a survey of pharmacists' 2004;63:105e13.
knowledge. Int J Clin Pharm 2016;38:10e5. [123] Callahan CM, Haag KM, Weinberger M, Tierney WM, Buchanan NN,
[97] Roulet L, Benoit E. Letter: medication administration via enteral feeding tube. Stump TE, et al. Outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy among
Int J Clin Pharm 2016;38:747e8. older adults in a community setting. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48:1048e54.
[98] Joos E, Mehuys E, Van Bocxlaer J, Remon JP, Van Winckel M, Boussery K. [124] Hyltander A, Bosaeus I, Svedlund J, Liedman B, Hugosson I, Wallengren O,
Knowledge of staff members of residential care facilities for individuals with et al. Supportive nutrition on recovery of metabolism, nutritional state,
intellectual disability on medication administration via enteral feeding tube. health-related quality of life, and exercise capacity after major surgery: a
J Intellect Disabil Res 2016;60:1066e72. randomized study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005;3:466e74.
[99] Joos E, Mehuys E, Van Bocxlaer J, Remon JP, Van Winckel M, Boussery K. Drug [125] McWhirter JP, Hambling CE, Pennington CR. The nutritional status of patients
administration via enteral feeding tubes in residential care facilities for in- receiving home enteral feeding. Clin Nutr 1994;13:207e11.
dividuals with intellectual disability: an observational study. J Intellect Dis- [126] Obara H, Tomite Y, Doi M. Serum trace elements in tube-fed neurological
abil Res 2015;59:215e25. dysphagia patients correlate with nutritional indices but do not correlate
[100] Joos E, Mehuys E, Remon JP, Van Winckel M, Boussery K. Analysis of drug use with trace element intakes: case of patients receiving enough trace elements
in institutionalized individuals with intellectual disability and tube feeding. intake. Clin Nutr 2008;27:587e93.
Acta Clin Belg Int J Clin Lab Med 2016;71:76e80. [127] Alivizatos V, Gavala V, Alexopoulos P, Apostolopoulos A, Bajrucevic S.
[101] Joos E, Van Tongelen I, Wijnants K, Mehuys E, Van Bocxlaer J, Remon JP, et al. Feeding tube-related complications and problems in patients receiving long-
Drug administration via enteral feeding tube in residential care facilities for term home enteral nutrition. Indian J Palliat Care 2012;18:31e3.
individuals with intellectual disability: a focus group study on guideline [128] Orlandoni P, Jukic Peladic N, Spazzafumo L, Venturini C, Cola C, Sparvoli D,
implementation. J Intellect Disabil 2016;20:329e40. et al. Utility of video consultation to improve the outcomes of home enteral
[102] Epp L, Lammert L, Vallumsetla N, Hurt RT, Mundi MS. Use of blenderized nutrition in a population of frail older patients. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2016;16:
tube feeding in adult and pediatric home enteral nutrition patients. Nutr Clin 762e7.
Pract 2017;32:201e5. [129] Ao P, Sebastianski M, Selvarajah V, Gramlich L. Comparison of complication
[103] Hurt RT, Edakkanambeth Varayil J, Epp LM, Pattinson AK, Lammert LM, rates, types, and average tube patency between jejunostomy tubes and
Lintz JE, et al. Blenderized tube feeding use in adult home enteral nutrition percutaneous gastrostomy tubes in a regional home enteral nutrition sup-
patients: a cross-sectional study. Nutr Clin Pract 2015;30:824e9. port program. Nutr Clin Pract 2015;30:393e7.

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022
18 S.C. Bischoff et al. / Clinical Nutrition xxx (xxxx) xxx

[130] Barone M, Viggiani MT, Amoruso A, Licinio R, Iannone A, Montenegro L, et al. [144] Wanden-Berghe C, Nolasco A, Planas M, Sanz-Valero J, Rodriguez T, Cuerda C,
Influence of age and type of underlying disease on complications related to et al. Health-related quality of life according to the main caregiver in patients
home enteral nutrition: a single Italian center experience. J Parenter Enteral with home nutritional support. Med Clin (Barc) 2008;131:281e4.
Nutr 2014;38:991e5. [145] Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based
[131] Cuerda C, Planas M, Gomez Candela C, Luengo LM. Trends in home enteral outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess
nutrition in Spain: analysis of the NADYA registry 1992e2007. Nutr Hosp 1998;2(i-iv):1e74.
2009;24:347e53. [146] Guo Z, Wu R, Zhu W, Gong J, Zhang W, Li Y, et al. Effect of exclusive enteral
[132] Gomes Jr CA, Lustosa SA, Matos D, Andriolo RB, Waisberg DR, Waisberg J. nutrition on health-related quality of life for adults with active Crohn's
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for disease. Nutr Clin Pract 2013;28:499e505.
adults with swallowing disturbances. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012: [147] Stevens CS, Lemon B, Lockwood GA, Waldron JN, Bezjak A, Ringash J. The
Cd008096. development and validation of a quality-of-life questionnaire for head and
[133] Arribas L, Frias L, Creus G, Parejo J, Urzola C, Ashbaugh R, et al. Document of neck cancer patients with enteral feeding tubes: the QOL-EF. Support Care
standardization of enteral nutrition access in adults. Nutr Hosp 2014;30:1e14. Cancer 2011;19:1175e82.
[134] Klek S, Hermanowicz A, Dziwiszek G, Matysiak K, Szczepanek K, Szybinski P, [148] Apezetxea A, Carrillo L, Casanueva F, Cuerda C, Cuesta F, Irles JA, et al. The
et al. Home enteral nutrition reduces complications, length of stay, and health NutriQoL® questionnaire for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL)
care costs: results from a multicenter study. Am J Clin Nutr 2014;100:609e15. in patients with home enteral nutrition (HEN): validation and first results.
[135] Howard P, Jonkers-Schuitema C, Furniss L, Kyle U, Muehlebach S, Odlund- Nutr Hosp 2016;33:1260e7.
Olin A, et al. Managing the patient journey through enteral nutritional care. [149] Cuerda MC, Apezetxea A, Carrillo L, Casanueva F, Cuesta F, Irles JA, et al.
Clin Nutr 2006;25:187e95. Development and validation of a specific questionnaire to assess health-
[136] Attanasio A, Bedin M, Stocco S, Negrin V, Biancon A, Cecchetto G, et al. related quality of life in patients with home enteral nutrition: Nutri-
Clinical outcomes and complications of enteral nutrition among older adults. QoL((R)) development. Patient Prefer Adherence 2016;10:2289e96.
Minerva Med 2009;100:159e66. [150] National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care (NICE). Nutrition support for
[137] Chang SC, Huang CY, Lin CH, Tu SL, Chao MS, Chen MH. The effects of sys- adults: oral nutrition support, enteral tube feeding and parenteral nutrition.
tematic educational interventions about nasogastric tube feeding on care- 2006.
givers' knowledge and skills and the incidence of feeding complications. [151] Dinenage S, Gower M, Van Wyk J, Blamey A, Ashbolt K, Sutcliffe M, et al.
J Clin Nurs 2015;24:1567e75. Development and evaluation of a home enteral nutrition team. Nutrients
[138] Kurien M, White S, Simpson G, Grant J, Sanders DS, McAlindon ME. Man- 2015;7:1607e17.
aging patients with gastrostomy tubes in the community: can a dedicated [152] Green S, Dinenage S, Gower M, Van Wyk J. Home enteral nutrition: orga-
enteral feed dietetic service reduce hospital readmissions? Eur J Clin Nutr nisation of services. Nurs Older People 2013;25:14e8.
2012;66:757e60. [153] Landeiro MJ, Peres HH, Martins TV. Evaluation of the educational tech-
[139] Day T. Home enteral feeding and its impact on quality of life. Br J Community nology "Caring for dependent people" by family caregivers in changes and
Nurs 2017;22:S14e6. transfers of patients and tube feeding. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2016;24:
[140] Schneider SM, Pouget I, Staccini P, Rampal P, Hebuterne X. Quality of life in e2774.
long-term home enteral nutrition patients. Clin Nutr 2000;19:23e8. [154] Morton K, Goodacre L. An exploration of the impact of home enteral tube
[141] Wanden-Berghe C, Nolasco A, Sanz-Valero J, Planas M, Cuerda C. Health- feeding on the eating habits of the partners of adults receiving home enteral
related quality of life in patients with home nutritional support. J Hum Nutr tube feeding. J Hum Nutr Diet 2008;21:397.
Diet 2009;22:219e25. [155] Majka AJ, Wang Z, Schmitz KR, Niesen CR, Larsen RA, Kinsey GC, et al. Care
[142] Martin L, Blomberg J, Lagergren P. Patients' perspectives of living with a coordination to enhance management of long-term enteral tube feeding: a
percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). BMC Gastroenterol 2012;12:126. systematic review and meta-analysis. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2014;38:
[143] Faruquie SS, Parker EK, Talbot P. Evaluation of patient quality of life and 40e52.
satisfaction with home enteral feeding and oral nutrition support services: a
cross-sectional study. Aust Health Rev 2016;40:605e12.

Please cite this article as: Bischoff SC et al., ESPEN guideline on home enteral nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clnu.2019.04.022