Endoscopic solutions to challenging enteral feeding problems

Use of an electromagnetic-guided device to assist with post-pyloric placement of a nasoenteral feeding tube: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  While endoscopic-guided placement (EGP) of a post-pyloric nasoenteral feeding tube may improve caloric intake and reduce the risk of bronchoaspiration, an electromagnetic-guided placement (EMGP) method may obviate the need for endoscopic procedures. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of EMGP versus EGP of a post-pyloric feeding tube. Methods  Protocolized searches were performed from the inception through January 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. Only randomized controlled trials were included comparing EMGP versus EGP. Study outcomes included: technical success (defined as appropriate post-pyloric positioning), tube and patient associated adverse events (AEs), time to enteral nutrition, procedure-associated cost, and procedure time. Pooled risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) were calculated using a fixed-effects model and heterogeneity evaluated using Higgins test (I ² ). Results  Four randomized trials (n = 536) were included. A total of 287 patients were included in the EMGP group and 249 patients in the EGP group. There was no difference between EMGP versus EGP regarding technical success, tube-related AEs, patient-related AEs, procedure time, and time in the right position. Time to enteral nutrition favored EMGP (MD: -134.37 [-162.13, -106.61]; I ²  = 35 %); with significantly decreased associated cost (MD: -127.77 ($) [-135.8-119.73]; I ²  = 0 %). Conclusions  Based on this study, EMGP and EGP were associated with similar levels of technical success and safety as well as time to complete the procedure. Despite this, EMGP was associated with reduced cost and time to initiation of nutrition.

Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients - Part 2: Peri- and post-procedural management. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

ESGE recommends the "pull" technique as the standard method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the direct percutaneous introducer ("push") technique for PEG placement in cases where the "pull" method is contraindicated, for example in severe esophageal stenosis or in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) or esophageal cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the intravenous administration of a prophylactic single dose of a beta-lactam antibiotic (or appropriate alternative antibiotic, in the case of allergy) to decrease the risk of post-procedural wound infection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends that inadvertent insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) into the respiratory tract should be considered a serious but avoidable adverse event (AE).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that each institution should have a dedicated protocol to confirm correct positioning of NGTs placed "blindly" at the patient's bedside; this should include: radiography, pH testing of the aspirate, and end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring, but not auscultation alone.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends confirmation of correct NGT placement by radiography in high-risk patients (intensive care unit [ICU] patients or those with altered consciousness or absent gag/cough reflex).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that EN may be started within 3 - 4 hours after uncomplicated placement of a PEG or PEG-J.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends that daily tube mobilization (pushing inward) along with a loose position of the external PEG bumper (1 - 2 cm from the abdominal wall) could mitigate the risk of development of buried bumper syndrome.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

The role of surgical gastrostomy in the age of endoscopic gastrostomy: a 13 years and 543 patients retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) became the gold standard for enteral feeding. Currently, surgical gastrostomy is seldom used.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluating the role of surgical gastrostomy in a center with a large experience in PEG.

METHODS

A retrospective study ranged 13 years, collecting from clinical records: age, gender, underlying disease, date of procedure, technique, primary surgery, complications, 30-day mortality. Patients were divided according to indication for gastrostomy: a) neurological; b) head and neck cancer; c) other diseases; and d) drainage. PEG, open surgical and laparoscopic gastrostomies were compared concerning evolution of the number of procedures, characteristics of patients, complications and mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 509 PEG, 26 open and 8 laparoscopic surgical gastrostomies. An increasing number of the percutaneous approach over the years was observed, while the number of surgical gastrostomies remains steady (mean: 2.6/year). All percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies but three were feeding procedures, mostly in neurological patients. All laparoscopic gastrostomies were feeding procedures in head and neck cancer. Most open surgical gastrostomies were secondary procedures, part of more complex surgeries, and frequently for drainage purposes. The open surgical approach displayed more morbidity and mortality, reflecting the severity of underlying diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

In our institution, open surgical gastrostomy is seldom used, and mostly as part of complex procedures, frequently for drainage purposes. PEG is the choice to most dysphagic patients needing an enteral feeding access. When not feasible, laparoscopic gastrostomy is a suitable alternative.

Risk factors for complications and mortality of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a multicenter, retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is performed to provide nutrition to patients with swallowing difficulties. A multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the predictors of complications and mortality after PEG placement.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent initial PEG placement between January 2004 and December 2011 at seven tertiary hospitals in the Republic of Korea.

RESULTS

All 1,625 patients underwent PEG placement by the pull-string method. The median age of the patients was 66 years, and 1,108 of the patients were men. The median follow-up period was 254 days. The common indications were stroke (31.6%) and malignancy (18.9%). The complication rate was 13.2%. The prophylactic use of antibiotics (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.88; p = 0.010) reduced the PEG-related infection rate, but the actual usage rate was 81.1%. The use of anticoagulants (OR, 7.26; 95% CI, 2.23-23.68; p = 0.001) and the presence of diabetes mellitus (OR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.49-10.87; p = 0.006) increased the risk of bleeding, but antiplatelet therapy did not. The procedural, 30-day, and overall mortality rates were 0.2, 2.4 and 14.0%, respectively. Serum albumin levels lower than 31.5 g/L (OR, 8.55; 95% CI, 3.11-23.45; p < 0.001) and C-reactive protein levels higher than 21.5 mg/L (OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.27-7.16; p = 0.012) increased the risk of 30-day mortality, and the patients who had both risk factors had a significantly shorter median survival time than those who did not (1,740 vs 3,181 days) (p < 0.001, log-rank).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings showed PEG to be a safe and feasible procedure, but the patient's nutritional and inflammatory status should be considered in predicting the outcomes of PEG placement.

Gastrointestinal tract access for enteral nutrition in critically ill and trauma patients: indications, techniques, and complications

BACKGROUND

Enteral nutrition (EN) is a widely used, standard-of-care technique for nutrition support in critically ill and trauma patients.

OBJECTIVE

To review the current techniques of gastrointestinal tract access for EN.

METHODS

For this traditional narrative review, we accessed English-language articles and abstracts published from January 1988 through October 2012, using three research engines (MEDLINE, Scopus, and EMBASE) and the following key terms: "enteral nutrition," "critically ill," and "gut access." We excluded outdated abstracts.

RESULTS

For our nearly 25-year search period, 44 articles matched all three terms. The most common gut access techniques included nasoenteric tube placement (nasogastric, nasoduodenal, or nasojejunal), as well as a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Other open or laparoscopic techniques, such as a jejunostomy or a gastrojejunostomy, were also used. Early EN continues to be preferred whenever feasible. In addition, evidence is mounting that EN during the early phase of critical illness or trauma trophic feeding has an outcome comparable to that of full-strength formulas. Most patients tolerate EN through the stomach, so postpyloric tube feeding is not needed initially.

CONCLUSION

In critically ill and trauma patients, early EN through the stomach should be instituted whenever feasible. Other approaches can be used according to patient needs, available expertise, and institutional guidelines. More research is needed in order to ensure the safe use of surgical tubes in the open abdomen.