Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy: 2 sides of the same coin

Management of an Esophago-pleural Fistula after Emergent Endoscopic Variceal Injectional Sclerotherapy: A Case Report And Literature Review

A 48-year-old man developed sudden-onset haematemesis and melena after decompensated posthepatitic cirrhosis. Endoscopic variceal injectional sclerotherapy was emergently performed. However, the patient developed esophago-pleural fistula, empyema, and liver failure. He thus received symptomatic treatments and nasojejunal feedings, which failed to restore the nutrition as the gastroesophageal reflux exacerbated the hydrothorax. Percutaneous endoscopic gastro-jejunal (PEG-J) was therefore carefully performed for enteral nutrition support. The patient had recovered from the fistula at a six-month follow-up, which allowed the resumption of an oral diet. Our literature review revealed that PEG-J is a feasible approach to treating esophago-pleural fistula, a rare but lethal complication of endoscopic sclerotherapy.

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.