The home enteral nutrition (HEN) population is a medically diverse group whose number has increased substantially in recent decades. Although medically stable compared with acute care patients requiring nutrition support, HEN population needs are unique and require a team approach to manage nutrition. Frequently encountered issues by the HEN team include mechanical issues of the tube site, gastrointestinal and metabolic problems, and patient preferences regarding tube weaning, formula selection, and compliance. A thorough search of the published literature on how to manage these issues was conducted using scientific healthcare databases with the following inclusion criteria: English only, last 10 years, and reviews and clinical trials. Where appropriate, references from the retrieved articles were hand‐searched for relevant articles older than 10 years and cited in this review. The purpose of this review is to provide the HEN team with strategies to address the top issues of home enteral feeding.

Objective criteria were effective in risk stratifying patients who presented with reports of peristomal infection. Patients with a score <8 tended to be at low risk, scores of 8-9 were of moderate risk, and patients with a score ≥10 were at high risk and required very close monitoring or hospitalization.

Enteral nutrition (EN) is a widely used therapeutic tool to provide nutrition support for patients with various clinical conditions, including different types of cancer. Head and neck cancers, often complicated by dysphagia, are among leading indications for enteral feeding. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (PEJ) tubes are typically used to deliver EN. This article presents a case report of a young male with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. Unfortunately, he developed metastasis of his cancer at the right lateral side of the PEG placement site, requiring surgical resection of seeded growth at the PEG site. This rare complication can be challenging, as it requires a high index of suspicion to diagnose and can potentially limit nutrition support options. A number of theories have been proposed to explain seeding during PEG/PEJ placement, including direct repositioning of malignant cells during instrumentation. A specific placement technique has not been shown to be superior, as seeding was reported with all placement techniques. However, given the lack of statistically powerful studies to describe this entity, there are still gaps we need to explore to better understand seeding of feeding tubes and best practices around diagnosis and early treatment. EN continues to be an important part of caring for patients with cancer during active or palliative treatments. Understanding potential risks in the setting of cancer metastasis is beneficial to the patients and multidisciplinary teams involved. Early recognition of possible seeding of feeding tube sites is necessary to ensure subsequent timely surgical intervention.

Background: With data demonstrating benefit, the prevalence of home enteral nutrition (HEN) has increased significantly over the last few decades. Despite this increase, there remains a paucity of data regarding real-world use of HEN including clinical outcomes and complications.Methods: Descriptive analysis of prospectively maintained database of our specialized HEN program was undertaken. Patients who received care in our program with HEN initiation date between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, were included in the analysis. Data regarding demographic information, anthropometrics, enteral nutrition (EN) regimen, electrolytes, and nutrition therapy history were included and tracked until July 31, 2021.Results: During the study period, 1600 patients initiated HEN treatment under our care. Majority of the study population needed EN therapy due to malignancy and its complications, including malignant dysphagia or mechanical obstruction (60.6%) followed by neurodegenerative diseases (7.5%). By the end of the study period, a majority of the patients (82%) stopped HEN treatment. Of these, 44.2% achieved EN goals and/or oral autonomy. Patients continued HEN treatment for a median of 100 (interquartile range, 32-301) days. Overall, 53.2% of patients experienced/reported at least one HEN-related complication that was clinically managed by the HEN team. Complications included tuberelated, enteral feeding intolerance (EFI), and electrolyte shifts. Conclusion:In our study population, HEN was most utilized to manage malignancyrelated complications, including dysphagia. Unfortunately, complications, including EFI and tube-related complications, remained quite prevalent. Further evaluation regarding risk factors for complications and preventive mechanisms, such as increased education, is indicated.

Background: Gastrostomy tubes placed radiologically, endoscopically or surgically facilitate long-term home enteral nutrition (HEN). Patient-specific clinical factors may affect placement techniques, confounding direct comparisons between radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) outcomes.This study sought to evaluate the differences in clinical outcomes in patients undergoing gastrostomy tube placement by interventional radiologists or gastroenterologists.Methods: A single-center prospective trial randomizing patients initiating HEN to RIG or PEG was conducted between March 2018 and June 2021. Patients were followed until the time of gastrostomy removal or until 9 months after tube placement. Tracked complications included peritonitis, abscess, bleeding, bowel perforation, and tube occlusion, malposition, or damage. Periprocedural pain rating and quality of life (QoL) surveys were collected.Results: Forty-two patients were randomized to RIG or PEG. Twenty patients underwent RIG (mean age, 63.0 ± 11.7 years; 85% male; 95% with head and neck cancer) and 22 patients underwent PEG (mean age, 66.3 ± 10.9 years; 81.8% male; 90.9% with head and neck cancer). RIG and PEG groups had 4.18 ± 5.49 and 2.80 ± 5.82 complications per 1000 HEN days, respectively (P = 0.357). The most frequent complications were tube malposition and abscess formation for the RIG and PEG groups, respectively. No major complications occurred in either group.There was no difference in the average of pain ratings in all pain inventory components across both groups. Both groups reported improvement in overall QoL after gastrostomy tube placement (P = 0.532). Conclusion:RIG is noninferior to PEG regarding complication rates, pain, and QoL when compared in a prospective randomized fashion.