Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 14, 2026

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Pump-assisted versus gravity-controlled enteral nutrition in long-term percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy patients:
Edward Shang1, Nicole Geiger, Joerg W Sturm
1Department of Surgery, University Hospital Mannheim, Germany. Edward.shang@urz.uni-heidelberg.de
Background:
Vomiting, aspiration, flatulence, and diarrhea are well-known negative side effects of enteral nutrition through percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). However, it is not yet clarified if pump-assisted (PA) or gravity-controlled (GC) application is the more comfortable and safe choice for long-term nutrition through PEG.
Methods:
This was a prospective, randomized, crossover study. Fifty long-term PEG patients were fed by PA nutrition (G1) and 50 patients were fed by GC nutrition (G2). Six weeks of observation (O1) was followed by a switch of method of nutritional application in both groups and an additional 6 weeks of observation (O2). Daily determination of comfort and safety was done with a standardized questionnaire. Evaluation of blood glucose levels on days 1, 21, and 42 during O1 and O2.
Results:
The patients in both groups had the same medical conditions and were of the same age and sex. Far less flatulence (p < .0006) and epigastric fullness (p < .0003) was discovered in G1 during O1. Also, significantly less regurgitation (p < .0002) and vomiting of feeding diet (p < .0001) in G1 versus G2 could be observed. The rate of diarrhea (p < .0003) in G2 was higher than in G1. The daily profile of blood glucose was significantly better (p < .0008) in G1 than in G2. After the nutritional application was changed in O2, the PA group (G2) again showed a significantly better rate of flatulence, epigastric fullness, regurgitation, vomiting, diarrhea, and daily profile of blood glucose. Ninety-six percent of the patients in G2 preferred further nutrition by PA after finishing this study. All patients in G1 continued their accustomed nutrition by PA.
Conclusion:
Nutrition through PA showed not only a higher comfort rate but also increased safety, which was expressed through a low rate of regurgitation and vomiting. PA presented better glucose metabolization manifested in improved blood glucose levels. As a result of this prospective study, PA is preferable to GC and preferred by patients with long-term PEG nutrition.
Related Concept Videos
Endoscopic Procedures I: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy
During an EGD, the endoscope can be used to:
Endoscopic Procedures V: ERCP
Patient...
Enteral Nutrition I: Orogastric and Nasogastric Feeding
Orogastric (OG) and nasogastric (NG) feeding are two standard methods used for enteral nutrition. Enteral nutrition is often preferred over...
Enteral Nutrition II: Nasointestinal and Gastrostomy Feeding
Nasointestinal Feeding
Nasointestinal feeding involves placing a tube through...
Parentral Nutrition: Centeral and Peripheral Parental Nutrition
PN can be administered through two primary routes:
1. Central Parenteral Nutrition (CPN):
CPN involves delivering a high concentration of nutrients through a large vein. This is typically achieved using a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) or,...

