Enfit™ system nasogastric tube failure

Berwick, Richard; Damani, Z.

doi:10.1111/anae.14194

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the ISO 80369‐3 standard stipulates an enteral small‐bore connector (internal) diameter of 2.9 mm, the standard does not specify all dimensions of a finished gastrostomy tube (G‐tube) device (eg, the length of the connector outside the physical connection) nor the direction of male‐female connections. ENFit, the most common adaptation of the ISO 80369‐3 standard, has received considerable attention from stakeholders, including patients, primary caregivers, healthcare delivery organizations, patient advocates, and manufacturers 6,7,11–20 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ENFit, the most common adaptation of the ISO 80369-3 standard, has received considerable attention from stakeholders, including patients, primary caregivers, healthcare delivery organizations, patient advocates, and manufacturers. 6,7,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] F I G U R E 2 The timeline of seminal events or studies on ENFit connectors and devices. The inset is a graphical representation of the ENFit connector adapted with permission from the GEDSA webpage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Synthesis of research on ENFit gastrostomy tubes with potential implications for US patients using these devices

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Misconnections between enteral devices and other medical devices have been associated with patient death and serious injuries. To minimize such misconnections, the design of connectors on enteral devices has been standardized. The most common adaptation of the standardized enteral connector is called ENFit. Gastrostomy tubes (G-tubes), which may or may not possess the ENFit connector, are increasingly used to deliver commercial and blenderized diets in home settings to enteral device users. To investigate and compare the performance of Gtubes with and without ENFit connectors, research investigations have recently been performed. However, synthesis of such investigations and quantitative discussion of the consequences of transitioning to ENFit-based G-tube devices has not yet occurred. Here we review the research findings from these studies, with data on patient practices from a Mayo Clinic survey, to estimate the impact on tube feeders in home settings of transitioning to ENFit-based G-tube devices. Extrapolating the findings from these studies to US enteral G-tube patients, 2.5%-8.6% of adult patients and 0.2%-1.9% of pediatric patients may experience perceptible slowing in their gravity feeds if using ENFit-based G-tube devices. About 2.5%-8.6% of adult patients and 0.5%-5.5% of pediatric patients (or their caregivers) may need to push with perceptibly more force for syringe push-based feeding using ENFit-based G-tube devices. Lastly, the article offers suggestions for patients and device manufacturers.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%