Contemporary acute care surgery percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement: An extreme bumper height and complications

Nasal Feeding Tubes Are Associated with Fewer Adverse Events than Feeding via Ostomy in Hospitalized Patients Receiving Enteral Nutrition

BACKGROUND

Surgical feeding ostomies (eg, gastrostomy) have become required by many nursing facilities for all patients receiving enteral nutrition, whether for short- or long-term use. These policies lack supportive evidence. Comparisons of adverse event rates between surgical and natural orifice tubes are few and lacking in the inpatient setting. Additionally, we hypothesize that adverse events related to feeding tubes are underreported. We sought to quantify adverse events to test the relative safety of surgical feeding ostomies and natural orifice (eg. nasogastric or orogastric) feeding tubes in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational cohort study of enterally fed inpatients using semiweekly focused physical examination, scripted survey, and chart review.

RESULTS

All tube-fed patients admitted to a large, urban, academic hospital received semiweekly bedside evaluation and chart review over a 9-week period (n = 226 unique patients, mean 6.25 visits each, total 1118 observations). Demographics were comparable between 148 subjects with natural orifice and 113 subjects with surgical feeding tubes. A higher incidence of adverse events was observed with surgical tubes (3.34 vs 1.25 events per 100 subject days, P < .001). Only 50% of all adverse events were documented in the medical record. More patients with surgical tubes were discharged to skilled nursing facilities (58% vs 24%).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical feeding tubes are associated with significantly higher in-hospital adverse event rates when compared with natural orifice (nasal or oral) feeding tubes. Policies requiring surgical feeding ostomies should be reevaluated.

Risk factors for prolonged need for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes in adult trauma patients: Experience of a level 1 trauma

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes are a means of providing an alternative enteric route of nutrition. This study sought to identify risk factors for the prolonged need of a percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy tube (≥90 days) in adult trauma patients.

METHODS

The trauma database of a level 1 trauma center was queried retrospectively to identify patients who had percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy tubes placed.

RESULTS

A total of 9,772 charts were reviewed with 282 patients (2.9%) undergoing successful percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy tube placement. On review of discharged living patients, 195 had adequate clinical documentation to allow for analysis. The mean age was 57.5 years, admission serum albumin was 3.7 g/dL, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 1.1. The first recorded mean Glasgow Coma Scale was 10.7, and their Injury Severity Score was 23.2. The mean duration of total hospital stay was 23.8 days, intensive care unit stay was 16.5 days, and in-hospital ventilator days was 11.5. Of the 272 patients, 77 (41.4%) required percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy tubes for >90 days. Statistically significant characteristics on univariate analysis included increasing age, a greater Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and a greater number of in-hospital ventilator days. On logistic regression, a Charlson Comorbidity Index score >1 (odds ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.56, P = .02) and greater in-hospital ventilator days (odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.09, P < .01) were predictive of the need for prolonged percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy tube placement.

CONCLUSION

A Charlson Comorbidity Index score >1 and prolonged in-hospital ventilator days were risk factors for the necessity of a percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy tube for ≥90 days after placement. This observation may assist patients/surrogates in decision-making when needing alternative routes for nutrition.

Comparing Outcomes Between "Pull" Versus "Push" Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Acute Care Surgery: Under-Reported Pull Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Incidence of Tube Dislodgement

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) complications are often under-reported in the literature, especially regarding the incidence of tube dislodgement (TD). TD can cause significant morbidity depending on its timing. We compared outcomes between "push" and "pull" PEGs. We hypothesized that push PEGs, because of its T-fasteners and balloon tip, would have a lower incidence of TD and complications compared with pull PEGs.

METHODS

We performed a chart review of our prospectively maintained acute care surgery database for patients who underwent PEG tube placement from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2013. Data regarding age, gender, body mass index, indications (trauma versus nontrauma), and complications (including TD) were extracted. Procedure-related complications were classified as either major if patients required an operative intervention or minor if they did not. We compared outcomes between pull PEG and push PEG. Multiple regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with major complications.

RESULTS

During the 4-y study period, 264 patients underwent pull PEGs and 59 underwent push PEGs. Age, gender, body mass index, and indications were similar between the two groups. The overall complications (major and minor) were similar (20% pull versus 22% push, P = 0.61). The incidence of TD was also similar (12% pull versus 9% push, P = 0.49). However, TD associated with major complications was higher in pull PEGs but was not statistically significant (6% pull versus 2% push, P = 0.21). Multiple regression analysis showed that dislodged pull PEG was associated with major complications (odds ratio 29.5; 95% confidence interval, 11.3-76.9; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of pull PEG TD associated with major complications is under-recognized. Specific measures should be undertaken to help prevent pull PEG TD.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, therapeutic.