Comparison of Home-Blenderized Formula and Commercial Enteral Formulas for Gastrostomy Tube-Fed Children: A Retrospective, Prospective Cohort Study.

Background Blenderized gastrostomy tube feedings (BGTFs) consist of pureed table foods and liquids that are administered as enteral tube feedings. Compared to commercial enteral formulas (CEFs), BGTF has been shown to have fewer side effects. Despite these results, apprehensions have been raised about microbial contamination, nutritional deficiencies or surplus, risk of gastrostomy tube (GT) blockages, and lack of consistency in clinical outcomes. The goal of this retrospective, prospective, 18-month-long study is to report the clinical and nutritional outcomes of GT-dependent pediatric patients who attended a multidisciplinary feeding clinic. Methodology After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and consent were obtained, 25 children who were receiving tube feeding via G were enrolled in a retrospective, prospective, observational, cohort study from August 2019 to February 2021. A multidisciplinary team was formed, and multivariate logistic regression was performed comparing subjects on BGTF versus CEF, per os diet versus nil per os, CEF versus homemade blenderized tube feeding (HBTF) versus blenderized tube feeding (BTF), and how they compared at the beginning and end of the study. Results The mean age of the patients was 4.4 years (SD ±2.2). Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and short bowel syndrome (SBS) were the most common comorbid gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. Of the 25 patients enrolled in the study, seven were initially on BGTF, while 14 ended the study on BGTF. There were no statistically significant differences in malnutrition status, feeding intolerance, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and GT blockages between all different comparison groups when comparing between the CEF versus HBTF versus commercial blenderized tube feeding (CBTF) groups. Of the patients who were in the BGTF group, there was a resolution of vitamin A deficiency, vitamin D deficiency, and anemia (n = 1). In total, two patients had resolved vitamin deficiencies, namely, vitamins A and D. Conclusions When comparing BGTF and CEF, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes. This study suggests that BGTF is at least equivalent to CEF in clinical outcomes, meaning BGTF should be considered standard nutrition for GT-dependent patients