Trends in Enteral Access Placement Among Patients With Oral Clefts: Evaluation of 46 617 Patient Admissions

• Published in: The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal Vol. 56; no. 1; pp. 21 - 30
• Main Authors: Boonipat, Thanapoom, Adams, Nicholas S., Shoemaker, Allen L., Mann, Robert J., Polley, John W., Girotto, John A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01-01-2019; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
• Subjects: Birth defects; Child; Cleft Lip - complications; Cleft Palate - complications; Dentistry; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Incidence; Ostomy; Patient Admission; Patient admissions; Regression analysis; Trends; social support; epidemiology; nonsyndromic clefting; feeding
• ISSN: 1055-6656; 1545-1569
• DOI: 10.1177/1055665618771425

Objective:
It is well known that patients with oral clefts have challenges with feeding. Enteral feeding access, in the form of gastrostomy, is often utilized to supplement or replace oral intake. Although commonly performed, these procedures have reported complication rates as high as 83%. We intend to discover rates of enteral access in patients with oral clefts and report-related outcomes.
Design:
The Healthcare Cost Utilization Project Kids’ Inpatient Database from 2000 to 2012 was analyzed using patients with oral clefts and enteral access procedures. The χ2 test was used for univariate analyses of proportions, and linear regression was used to analyze trends. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze odds ratios.
Results:
Of the 46 617 patient admissions included, 14.6% had isolated cleft lip (CL), 51.7% cleft lip and palate (CLP), and 43.7% isolated cleft palate. The rates of enteral access in the oral cleft population increased from 3.7% in 2000 to 5.8% in 2012 (P < .001). Increased rates were identified in patients with (P = .019) and without (P < .001) complex conditions. A significant increase in the rate of enteral access was seen in patients with CLP (P < .001) and isolated cleft palate (P < .001). No difference was seen in the isolated CL group (P = .096). Patients with complex conditions were at a 4.4-fold increased risk and those admitted to urban, teaching hospitals were at a 4.7-fold risk of enteral access placement.
Conclusions:
The rates for enteral feeding access increased significantly from 2000 to 2012. The reasons for the increased incidence are unclear. Invasive enteral access procedures have been shown to have a multitude of complications. Careful patient selection should be done before placement of invasive enteral access.