Complications following gastrostomy tube insertion in patients with head and neck cancer: a prospective multi-institution study, systematic review and meta-analysis

Use of gastrostomy in head and neck cancer: a systematic review to identify areas for future research

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review of studies, which investigate the role of gastrostomy tube feeding in head and neck squamous cell cancer.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the English literature, identifying areas of clinical equipoise and recommendations for future studies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Varying practices in G-tube use in HNSCC, the benefits and disadvantages of G-tubes, the effect of G-tube placement on multidimensional outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer, including quality of life and health economics and to draw themes that may lend themselves to future research.

RESULTS

The search identified 216 articles of which 59 were considered relevant. During treatment, a significant number of patients need enteral nutritional supplementation through nasogastric or G-tubes. Gastrostomy tubes have a good safety profile. Most clinicians agree that the use should be restricted to advanced tumours. Studies on prophylactic insertion of G-tubes do not show a consistent advantage to the nutritional status compared with NG tubes. At 1 year, G-tube retention rates vary between 10% and 30%. The presence of a feeding tube has a negative impact on quality of life. Placing G-tubes may have an adverse effect on swallowing after chemoradiation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of consensus among clinicians about indications for placing G-tubes. There is sufficient equipoise in this area for further investigation of the effect of varying feeding practices on functional outcomes, quality of life and health economics.

Enteral nutrition access devices

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but, in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such situations, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the ASGE Governing Board. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 for articles related to endoscopy in patients requiring enteral feeding access by using the keywords "endoscopy," "percutaneous," "gastrostomy," "jejunostomy," "nasogastric," "nasoenteric," "nasojejunal," "transnasal," "feeding tube," "enteric," and "button." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Novel approach to antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a new and simpler strategy of antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).

DESIGN

Single centre, two arm, randomised, controlled, double blind clinical trial.

SETTING

Endoscopy unit in Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, between 3 June 2005 and 31 October 2009.

PARTICIPANTS

234 patients with an indication for PEG who gave informed consent to participate.

INTERVENTION

A single 20 ml dose of the oral solution of sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim (also known as co-trimoxazole or Bactrim; F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland) deposited in the PEG catheter immediately after insertion. The control group received standard prophylaxis consisting of a single intravenous dose of 1.5 g cefuroxime (Zinacef; GlaxoSmithKline, London) administered before insertion of the PEG tube.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically evident wound infection within 14 days after insertion of the PEG catheter. Secondary outcomes were positive bacterial culture and blood tests (highly sensitive C reactive protein and white blood cell count). All randomised patients were included in an intention to treat analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 234 patients included in this study, 116 were randomly assigned to co-trimoxazole and 118 to cefuroxime. At follow-up 7-14 days after insertion of the PEG catheter, wound infection was found in 10 (8.6%) patients in the co-trimoxazole group and 14 (11.9%) in the cefuroxime group, which corresponds to a percentage point difference of -3.3% (95% confidence interval -10.9% to 4.5%). The per protocol analysis, which comprised 100 patients in each group, gave similar results-10% and 13% infection in the co-trimoxazole and cefuroxime groups, respectively (percentage point difference -3.0%, 95% CI -11.8% to 5.8%). Both these analyses indicate non-inferiority of co-trimoxazole compared with cefuroxime because the upper bounds of the confidence intervals are lower than the pre-determined non-inferiority margin of 15%. Analyses of the secondary outcomes supported this finding.

CONCLUSION

20 ml of co-trimoxazole solution deposited in a newly inserted PEG catheter is at least as effective as cefuroxime prophylaxis given intravenously before PEG at preventing wound infections in patients undergoing PEG. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18677736.

The practice of gastrostomy tube placement across a Canadian regional health authority

OBJECTIVES

We sought to conduct an assessment of the practice of gastrostomy (G) tube placement across an entire city, which would reflect usual clinical care as compared with referral center practice.

METHODS

We reviewed and retrospectively extracted data from patient records for all percutaneous endoscopic G (PEG) and radiological percutaneous G (RPG) tube placements at six Winnipeg hospitals between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007.

RESULTS

A total of 418 patients had G tubes (376 PEG, 42 RPG) inserted during the study period. The most common indications were cerebrovascular accidents (25%), head and neck cancer (23%), and head trauma (10%). The position of the external bolster was not documented in 38% of patients. The median time to the first complication was 10 days, initiation of feeding was 48 hours, and tube removal was 40 days. Complications developed in 102 (24%) patients. Patients with RPG tubes had more infections and were less likely to receive prophylactic antibiotics (P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, complications were more likely to occur in patients with RPG tubes and after insertions by lowest procedure volume physicians. Overall mortality was 12% within 30 days of G-tube placement. Death of one patient was directly related to peritonitis after G-tube insertion.

CONCLUSIONS

In usual clinical practice, there is an underuse of prophylactic antibiotics and a delay in the institution of nutritional support after G-tube placement. A small but significant proportion of patients may develop major complications, with associated risk of mortality. The higher complication rate after procedures performed by lowest volume physicians needs further evaluation.