Prognostic outcomes after direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy in elderly patients: comparison with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Safety and efficacy of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube placement compared with surgical jejunostomy: a tertiary care analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Jejunostomy tube placements provides enteral access for feeding in eligible patients who cannot meet their nutritional needs by mouth. They can be surgically placed laparoscopically (lap-J) or with the use of a conventional open laparotomy approach (open-J). Recently, direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) has emerged as an alternative owing to its low cost and shorter recovery times. We sought to retrospectively compare the procedural success rates and adverse events of these methods.

METHODS

Patients were identified by querying our health system patient database and the departmental database of patients who underwent DPEJ. The patients were divided into 3 cohorts based on the procedure: DPEJ, lap-J, or open-J. Patient age and body mass index, procedural success rate, and adverse event rate were compared among the 3 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients met inclusion criteria (65 DPEJ, 111 lap-J, and 25 open-J). Procedural success rates were similar among the 3 groups (DPEJ 96.9%, lap-J 99.1%, open-J 100%; P = .702). Rates of infection and bleeding were also similar among the 3 groups. There were no cases of GI perforation. Tube dysfunction for any reason that required complete removal or replacement within 90 days occurred more often in the surgical groups than in the DPEJ group (DPEJ 0%, lap-J 35.1%, open-J 40.0%; P < .001). This was driven largely by increased rates of tube clogging and tube dislodgement in the surgical groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DPEJ is a safe and effective alternative to surgical jejunostomy in eligible patients and may be associated with decreased adverse event rates at 90 days.

Safety of Percutaneous Endoscopic Jejunostomy Placement Compared With Surgical and Radiologic Jejunostomy Placement: A Nationwide Inpatient Assessment

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We compared the safety and outcomes of percutaneous jejunostomy tubes placed endoscopically (PEJ), fluoroscopically by interventional radiology (IR-jejunostomy), and open jejunostomy placed surgically (surgical jejunostomy).

METHODS

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, we identified hospitalized patients who underwent a jejunostomy from 2016 to 2019. Selected patients were divided into 3 cohorts: PEJ, IR-jejunostomy, and surgical jejunostomy. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) for adverse events were calculated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 6022 (65.2±9.8 y) surgical jejunostomy patients, 3715 (63.6±11.0 y) endoscopic jejunostomy patients, and 14,912 (64.8±11.6 y) IR-jejunostomy patients were identified. Compared with surgery, PEJ patients were 32% less likely to experience postprocedure complications (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.58-0.79, P<0.001) while IR-jejunostomy patients were 17% less likely to experience complications (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.73-0.94, P<0.001); test of proportion showed that endoscopy had significantly fewer total adverse events compared with IR (P<0.001). For individual complications, compared with surgery, the odds of intestinal perforation using PEJ and IR, respectively, were 0.26 (95% CI: 0.14-0.49, P<0.001) and 0.31 (95% CI: 0.21-0.47, P<0.001), for postprocedure infection 0.32 (95% CI: 0.20-0.50; P<0.001) and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.45-0.83; P=0.001); and for hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion 0.71 (95% CI: 0.56-0.91; P=0.005) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.61-0.91; P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic placement of percutaneous jejunostomy tubes (PEJ) in inpatients is associated with significantly lower risks of adverse events and mortality compared with IR and surgical jejunostomy.

A multifaceted comparative analysis of image and video technologies in gastrointestinal endoscope and their clinical applications

This paper presents a comprehensive exploration of endoscopic technologies in clinical applications across seven tables, each focusing on a unique facet of the medical field. The discourse begins with a detailed analysis of pediatric endoscopes, highlighting their diagnostic capabilities in various conditions. It then delves into the specifications and applications of globally recognized capsule endoscopy devices. Additionally, the paper incorporates an analysis of advanced imaging techniques, such as Narrow Band Imaging (NBI), Flexible Spectral Imaging Color Enhancement (FICE), and i-scan, which are increasingly being integrated into ultrathin gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes. Factors like technological capabilities, light source, camera technology, and computational constraints are evaluated to understand their compatibility with these advanced imaging techniques, each offering unique advantages and challenges in clinical settings. NBI, for instance, is lauded for its user-friendly, real-time enhanced imaging capabilities, making it effective for early detection of conditions like colorectal cancer and Barrett's esophagus. Conversely, FICE and i-scan offer high customizability and are compatible with a broader range of endoscope models. The paper further delves into innovative advances in movement control for Nasojejunal (NJ) feeding tube endoscopy, elucidating the potential of AI and other novel strategies. A review of the technologies and methodologies enhancing endoscopic procedure control and diagnostic precision follows, emphasizing image and video technologies in pediatric endoscopy, capsule endoscopes, ultrathin endoscopes, and their clinical applications. Finally, a comparative analysis of leading real-time video monitoring endoscopes in clinical practices underscores the continuous advancements in the field of endoscopy, ensuring improved diagnostics and precision in surgical procedures. Collectively, the comparative analysis presented in this paper highlights the remarkable diversity and continuous evolution of endoscopic technologies, underlining their crucial role in diagnosing and treating an array of medical conditions, thereby fostering advancements in patient care and clinical outcomes.

Jejunal access for enteral nutrition: A practical guide for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension and direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy

For patients requiring long-term (>4 weeks) jejunal nutrition, jejunal medication delivery, or decompression, a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension (PEG-J) or a direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) may be indicated. PEG-J is the preferred option if a PEG tube is already in place or if simultaneous gastric decompression and jejunal nutrition are needed. DPEJ is recommended for patients with altered anatomy due to foregut surgery, high risk of jejunal extension migration, and whenever PEG-J fails. Successful placement rates are lower for DPEJ but recent publications have reported improvements, partly due to the use of balloon-assisted enteroscopy. Both techniques are contraindicated in cases of active peritonitis, uncorrectable coagulopathy, and ongoing bowel ischaemia, and relative contraindications include, among other, peptic ulcer disease and haemodynamic or respiratory instability. In this narrative review, we present the most recent evidence on indications, contraindications, technical considerations, adverse events, and outcomes of PEG-J and DPEJ.

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022

MR1: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as the first-line examination, before consideration of other endoscopic and radiological diagnostic tests for suspected small-bowel bleeding, given the excellent safety profile of capsule endoscopy, its patient tolerability, and its potential to visualize the entire small-bowel mucosa.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR2: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with overt suspected small-bowel bleeding as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, ideally within 48 hours, to maximize the diagnostic and subsequent therapeutic yield.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR3: ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends conservative management in those patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding and high quality negative small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends the performance of small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a first-line examination in patients with iron-deficiency anemia when small bowel evaluation is indicated.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn's disease and negative ileocolonoscopy findings as the initial diagnostic modality for investigating the small bowel, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known bowel stenosis.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR8: ESGE recommends, in patients with unremarkable or nondiagnostic findings from dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging, small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a subsequent investigation if deemed likely to influence patient management.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR9: ESGE recommends, in patients with established Crohn's disease, the use of a patency capsule before small-bowel capsule endoscopy to decrease the capsule retention rate.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR10: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) as an alternative to surgery for foreign bodies retained in the small bowel requiring retrieval in patients without acute intestinal obstruction.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR11: ESGE recommends DAE-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (DAE-ERCP) as a first-line endoscopic approach to treat pancreaticobiliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy (except for Billroth II patients).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Chinese expert consensus on prevention and intervention for the elderly with malnutrition (2022)

Malnutrition is a state of altered body composition and body cell mass due to inadequate intake or utilization of energy or nutrients, leading to physical and mental dysfunction and impaired clinical outcomes. As one of the most common geriatric syndromes, malnutrition in the elderly is a significant risk factor for poor clinical outcomes, causing a massive burden on medical resources and society. The risk factors for malnutrition in the elderly are diverse and include demographics, chronic diseases, and psychosocial factors. Presently, recommendations for the prevention and intervention of malnutrition in the elderly are not clear or consistent in China. This consensus is based on the latest global evidence and multiregional clinical experience in China, which aims to standardize the prevention and intervention of malnutrition in the elderly in China and improve the efficacy of clinical practice and the prognosis of elderly patients.

Gastroenterologist's Guide to Gastrostomies

Gastroenterologists are frequently consulted for evaluation feeding tube placement, or for management of complications in an existing feeding tube. Though a frequent topic of consultation for GI Fellows, there are few comprehensive resources for feeding tube placement and troubleshooting available. In this review, we discuss different types of feeding tubes, when each should be considered, and various methods and techniques for placement. Considerations for when one type, method, technique, or specialty may be preferred over the other will be discussed. Additionally, we discuss management of the many complications of indwelling feeding tubes. Our goal is to create a comprehensive review for gastroenterologists to cover clinically relevant questions related to feeding tube placement and management.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Gastroparesis

Gastroparesis is characterized by symptoms suggesting retention of food in the stomach with objective evidence of delayed gastric emptying in the absence of mechanical obstruction in the gastric outflow. This condition is increasingly encountered in clinical practice. These guidelines summarize perspectives on the risk factors, diagnosis, and management of gastroparesis in adults (including dietary, pharmacological, device, and interventions directed at the pylorus), and they represent the official practice recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology. The scientific evidence for these guidelines was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation process. When the evidence was not appropriate for Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, we used expert consensus to develop key concept statements. These guidelines should be considered as preferred but are not the only approaches to these conditions.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and jejunostomy: Indications and techniques

Nutritional support is essential in patients who have a limited capability to maintain their body weight. Therefore, oral feeding is the main approach for such patients. When physiological nutrition is not possible, positioning of a nasogastric, nasojejunal tube, or other percutaneous devices may be feasible alternatives. Creating a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a suitable option to be evaluated for patients that need nutritional support for more than 4 wk. Many diseases require nutritional support by PEG, with neurological, oncological, and catabolic diseases being the most common. PEG can be performed endoscopically by various techniques, radiologically or surgically, with different outcomes and related adverse events (AEs). Moreover, some patients that need a PEG placement are fragile and are unable to express their will or sign a written informed consent. These conditions highlight many ethical problems that become difficult to manage as treatment progresses. The aim of this manuscript is to review all current endoscopic techniques for percutaneous access, their indications, postprocedural follow-up, and AEs.

Percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy: when, how, and when to avoid it

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current review summarizes current evidence regarding the indications, contraindications, and technical aspects of placing a direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ), as well as procedure-related and patient-related outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

DPEJ is indicated for patients who require long-term (>4 weeks) jejunal nutrition due to existing altered foregut anatomy (e.g., previous gastrectomy) or because the gastric route is not an option (e.g., due to high risk of aspiration, intolerance, gastroparesis). DPEJ may also offer decompression of the gastrointestinal tract in cases of small bowel obstruction (e.g., peritoneal carcinomatosis). Absolute contraindications include active peritonitis, uncorrectable coagulopathy, and ongoing bowel ischemia. Technically, the 'pull' technique using a paediatric colonoscope will be sufficient for most cases. Recent publications demonstrate high rates of technical success (>85%), while patient outcomes do not differ among patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and those undergoing DPEJ. Obesity is a risk factor for technical failure, while age more than 80 years, diabetes mellitus, and ongoing inflammatory status may be considered risk factors for DPEJ-associated mortality.

SUMMARY

DPEJ is a safe and efficacious modality for long-term jejunal nutrition with an acceptable risk of mild complications. Careful patient selection and respect of preprocedural, periprocedural, and postprocedural precautions are of the utmost importance to ensuring a favourable outcome.

Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension (PEG-J) technical success and outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic methods of delivering uninterrupted feeding to the jejunum include direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) or PEG with jejunal extension (PEG-J), validated from small individual studies. We aim to perform a meta-analysis to assess their effectiveness and safety in a variety of clinical scenarios. Methods  Major databases were searched until June 2021. Efficacy outcomes included technical and clinical success, while safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs) and malfunction rates. We assessed heterogeneity using I ² and classic fail-safe to assess bias. Results  29 studies included 1874 patients (983 males and 809 females); mean age of 60 ± 19 years. Pooled technical and clinical success rates with DPEJ were 86.6 % (CI, 82.1-90.1, I ² 73.1) and 96.9 % (CI, 95.0-98.0, I ² 12.7). The pooled incidence of malfunction, major and minor AEs with DPEJ were 11 %, 5 %, and 15 %. Pooled technical and clinical success for PEG-J were 94.4 % (CI, 85.5-97.9, I ² 33) and 98.7 % (CI, 95.5-99.6, I ²  < 0.001). The pooled incidence of malfunction, major and minor AEs with DPEJ were 24 %, 1 %, and 25 %. Device-assisted DPEJ performed better in altered gastrointestinal anatomy. First and second attempts were 87.6 % and 90.2 %. Conclusions  DPEJ and PEG-J are safe and effective procedures placed with high fidelity with comparable outcomes. DPEJ was associated with fewer tube malfunction and failure rates; however, it is technically more complex and not standardized, while PEG-J had higher placement rates. The use of balloon enteroscopy was found to enhance DPEJ performance.

Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy in Patients After Partial Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Study to Assess the Technical Feasibility of Postsurgical Remnant Stomach Access

PURPOSE

To evaluate the technical feasibility of percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy in patients after partial gastrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 15 consecutive gastrectomized patients with attempted percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy at our institution between April 2014 and March 2021. When the stomach was sufficiently insufflated to distend below the left anterior subcostal margin, percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy with gastropexy was conventionally performed by the Seldinger technique. When the stomach was still highly positioned and/or overlaid by the other organs, some adjunctive maneuvers, such as hydro-displacement, intragastric balloon support, or cephalad oblique puncture or left intercostal puncture, were employed as modified gastrostomy. Ultrasonography or x-ray or computed tomography fluoroscopy was used for imaging guidance during the gastric puncture. Adequate tube placement was defined as technical success. Technical details, clinical outcomes, and complications were reviewed.

RESULTS

One patient underwent percutaneous radiologic jejunostomy instead of gastrostomy because safe gastric access could not be ensured. Seven patients underwent conventional gastrostomy; the other seven underwent modified gastrostomy with no gastropexy. The technical success rate was 100% (7/7) in the conventional group and 85.7% (6/7) in the modified group. The stomach was punctured under x-ray or computed tomography fluoroscopy for conventional gastrostomy. In contrast, the combination of various modalities was used for modified gastrostomy except for one failed case with unintentional transhepatic access. During a median follow-up of 108 days, no major complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

The adequate combination of multimodal imaging guidance and technical modifications could secure radiological creation of gastrostomy for the postsurgical stomach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4, Case Series.