Microbiological contamination present in enteral tube feeding prepared in hospitals and/or at home: a systematic review

Julia Fernanda Costa Kozow; Estela Iraci Rabito; Jenifer Faria Kruger; Caroline Opolski Medeiros; Rayane Luizi da Costa; Márcia Regina Beux; Lize Stangarlin-Fiori

doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuad123

Microbiological contamination present in enteral tube feeding prepared in hospitals and/or at home: a systematic review

Nutr Rev. 2023 Oct 12:nuad123. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuad123. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Julia Fernanda Costa Kozow¹, Estela Iraci Rabito², Jenifer Faria Kruger³, Caroline Opolski Medeiros², Rayane Luizi da Costa², Márcia Regina Beux², Lize Stangarlin-Fiori²

Affiliations

¹ Graduate Program in Nutrition, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
² Postgraduate Program in Food and Nutrition, Department of Nutrition, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
³ Complexo Hospital de Clínicas, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.

PMID: 37824326
DOI: 10.1093/nutrit/nuad123

Abstract

Context: The safety of enteral formulas is important to restore and maintain the health of patients.

Objective: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the microbiological contamination present in enteral tube feeding prepared in hospitals and/or at home.

Data sources: A systematic search was conducted of the Medline, Scopus, BVS, CAPES/MEC, Embase, Science Direct, and SciELO databases and gray literature.

Data extraction: Eligible studies that analyzed the contamination of enteral formulas manipulated in hospitals and/or at home were selected; a quality assessment tool was used.

Data analysis: Twenty-three studies evaluated 1099 enteral formulations. Of these, 44.67% of enteral formulas (n = 491) exceeded the acceptable bacterial count. Samples of homemade enteral formulation preparations (86.03%; n = 191) had the highest bacterial counts, followed by mixed preparations (79.72%; n = 59), and commercial formulas (30.01%; n = 241). The number of samples of enteral formulations that exceeded the bacterial count at home was 70.79% (n = 160 at the hospital was 37.91% (n = 331). Total coliforms (82.68%; n = 406) and mesophilic aerobes (79.22%; n = 389) were the most common microorganisms. Samples with bacterial pathogens were also identified, with Bacillus cereus (4.07%; n = 20) and Listeria monocytogenes (3.66%; n = 18) being the most prevalent.

Conclusions: A high number of samples of enteral formulations exceeded the bacterial count, but the risk to patient's health when consuming enteral tube feeding prepared in hospitals or at home may be low. This is because the bacteria present in the samples are not considered potential causes of disease but rather indicators of hygiene conditions.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022367573.

Keywords: enteral nutrition; food contamination; food hygiene; food microbiology; home patients; hospital care.