Early feeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in trauma and surgical intensive care patients: A retrospective cohort study

When to feed after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Initiation of feeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement has been debated. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed on early feeding compared with delayed feeding after PEG placement with varying results. Therefore, a meta-analysis was conducted examining early vs delayed feeding after placement of a PEG.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of databases was conducted in January 2024. Peer-reviewed published RCTs comparing early feeding (≤4 h) with delayed feeding (>4 h) were identified and included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was completed using pooled estimates of overall complications, individual complications, mortality ≤72 h, and number of day 1 significant gastric residual volumes.

RESULTS

Six RCTs (n = 467) were included in the analysis. Comparison of early feeding with delayed feeding after PEG showed no statistically significant differences for overall complications (P = 0.18), mortality ≤72 h (P = 0.3), and number of day 1 significant gastric residual volumes (P = 0.05). No differences were also noted for individual complications, including vomiting, wound infection, bleeding, or diarrhea.

CONCLUSION

Feeding ≤4 h after PEG have no differences in minor and major complications compared with that of delayed feeding. Early feeding ≤4 h is safe and should be recommended in future guidelines.

Early Versus Late Feeding After Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Placement in Trauma and Burn

INTRODUCTION

Timing to resume feeds after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement continues to vary among US trauma surgeons. The purpose of this study was to assess differences in meeting nutritional therapy goals and adverse outcomes with early versus late enteral feeding after PEG placement.

METHODS

This retrospective review included 364 trauma and burn patients who underwent PEG placement. Data included patient characteristics, time to initiate feeds, rate feeds were resumed, % feed volume goals on postoperative days 0-7, and complications. Statistical analysis was performed comparing two groups (feeds ≤ 6 h versus > 6 h) and three subgroups (< 4 h, 4-6 h, ≥ 6 h) based on data quartiles. Chi-square/Fisher's exact test, independent-samples t-test, and one-way analysis of variance were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Mean time to initiate feeds after PEG was 5.48 ± 4.79 h. Burn patients received early feeds in a larger proportion. A larger proportion of trauma patients received late feeds. The mean % of goal feed volume met on postoperative day 0 was higher in the early feeding group versus the late (P < 0.001). There were no differences in adverse events, even after subgroup analysis of those who received feeds < 4 h after PEG placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with early initiation of feeds after PEG placement achieve a higher percentage of goals on day 0 without an increased rate of adverse events. Unfortunately, patients routinely fall short of their target tube feeding goals.

Immediate-use strategy is as safe and effective as delayed-use strategy following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is the most common enteral access for long-term feeding. The aim of our study is to assess the feasibility and safety of immediate PEG tube use after initial placement.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study between August 2006 and August 2016. Prior to August 2011, tube feedings were delayed for ≥4 h after initial PEG placement, compared with immediate use (<1 h) after August 2011. Primary outcomes were complication rates within 30 days of placement. Secondary outcomes were impact of morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and need for repeat PEG placement.

RESULTS

Our study included 1296 patients during the 10-year period, of which 704 underwent delayed use and 592 underwent immediate use (744 inpatient and 552 outpatient). There were no significant differences between the delayed-use and immediate-use PEG with regard to complications (3.4% vs 4.4%; P = 0.76). Subgroup analysis also reflected no significant differences in complications between inpatient and outpatient groups. For inpatients, there were no substantial differences in inpatient mortality (3.9% vs 3.3%; P = 0.70), mortality within 30 days of discharge (13.8% vs 13.1%; P = 0.15), readmissions (38.2% vs 34.3%; P = 0.23), repeat PEG placement (0.7% vs 1.5%; P = 0.46), and length of stay (13.3 vs 13.9 days; P = 0.99).

CONCLUSION

Patients who received immediate enteral nutrition after PEG tube placement did not have any increased complications, morbidity, or mortality; and it is just as safe when compared with patients who received delayed feeding.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Placement in Trauma Patients: Early vs Delayed Initiation of Enteral Feeding

In critically ill trauma patients, adequate nutrition is essential for the body's healing process. Currently, there is no clinical standard for initiating feeds after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement. We aimed to demonstrate that early enteral nutrition (EN) is as safe as delayed EN in patients who have undergone PEG tube insertion. We conducted a multi-center, retrospective cohort study of 384 patients from the Prisma Health Trauma Registries who received PEGs. Feeding intolerance was defined as high gastric residuals, nausea, emesis, sustained diarrhea, or ileus. The probability that a patient would experience intolerance was 11.7% in those fed within 6 hours, 5.1% among patients fed between 6 and 12 hours, 6.0% among patients fed between 12 and 24 hours, and 7.6% among patients fed after 24 hours, for which no statistically significant difference was detected. These findings support that early EN after PEG placement is safe in critically ill, trauma patients.