Gastrostomy tube placement by radiological versus endoscopic methods in an acute care setting: a retrospective review of frequency, indications, complications and outcomes. Can J Gastroenterol. 2009;23:109-114. [PMID: 19214286 DOI: 10.1155/2009/801925]

Value of interventional radiology and their contributions to modern medical systems

Interventional radiology (IR) is a unique specialty that incorporates a diverse set of skills ranging from imaging, procedures, consultation, and patient management. Understanding how IR generates value to the healthcare system is important to review from various perspectives. IR specialists need to understand how to meet demands from various stakeholders to expand their practice improving patient care. Thus, this review discusses the domains of value contributed to medical systems and outlines the parameters of success. IR benefits five distinct parties: patients, practitioners, payers, employers, and innovators. Value to patients and providers is delivered through a wide set of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Payers and hospital systems financially benefit from the reduced cost in medical management secondary to fast patient recovery, outpatient procedures, fewer complications, and the prestige of offering diverse expertise for complex patients. Lastly, IR is a field of rapid innovation implementing new procedural technology and techniques. Overall, IR must actively advocate for further growth and influence in the medical field as their value continues to expand in multiple domains. Despite being a nascent specialty, IR has become indispensable to modern medical practice.

Iatrogenic vascular complications of non-vascular percutaneous abdominal procedures

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to compile and present all of the reported vascular complications that resulted from common non-vascular abdominal procedures in the literature. Non-vascular procedures include, though are not limited to, percutaneous abscess/fluid collection drainage (PAD), percutaneous nephrostomy (PN), paracentesis, percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC)/percutaneous biliary drainage (PBD), percutaneous biliary stone removal, and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PG)/percutaneous radiologic gastrojejunostomy (PG-J). By gathering this information, radiologists performing these procedures can be aware of the associated vascular injuries, as well as take steps to minimize risks.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted using the PubMed database to catalog relevant articles, published in the year 2000 onward, in which an iatrogenic vascular complication occurred from the following non-vascular abdominal procedures: PAD, PN, paracentesis, PTC/PBD, percutaneous biliary stone removal, and PG/PG-J. Biopsy and tumor ablation were deferred from this article.

RESULTS

214 studies met criteria for analysis. 28 patients died as a result of vascular complications from the analyzed non-vascular abdominal procedures. Vascular complications from paracentesis were responsible for 19 patient deaths, followed by four deaths from PTC/PBD, three from biliary stone removal, and two from PG.

CONCLUSION

Despite non-vascular percutaneous abdominal procedures being minimally invasive, vascular complications still can arise and be quite serious, even resulting in death. Through the presentation of vascular complications associated with these procedures, interventionalists can improve patient care by understanding the steps that can be taken to minimize these risks and to reduce complication rates.

Risk factors and natural history of bedside percutaneous endoscopic versus fluoroscopy-guided gastrostomy tubes in intensive care unit patients

INTRODUCTION

There is a paucity of literature comparing patients receiving bedside placed percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) versus fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous gastrostomy tubes (G-tube) in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting. This study aims to investigate and compare the natural history and complications associated with PEG versus fluoroscopic G-tube placement in ICU patients.

METHODS

All adult patients admitted in the ICU requiring feeding tube placement at our center from 1/1/2017 to 1/1/2022 with at least 12-month follow up were identified through retrospective chart review. Adjusting for patient comorbidities, hospital factors, and indications for enteral access, a 1-to-2 propensity score matched Cox proportional-hazards model was fitted to evaluate the treatment effect of bedside PEG tube placement versus G-tube placement on patient 1-year complication, readmission, and death rates. Major complications were defined as those requiring operative or procedural intervention.

RESULTS

This study included 740 patients, with 178 bedside PEG and 562 fluoroscopic G-tube placements. The overall rate of complication was 22.3% (13% PEG, 25.2% G-tube, P = 0.003). The major complication rate was 11.2% (8.5% PEG, 12.1% G-tube, P = 0.09). Most common complications were tube dysfunction (16.7% PEG; 39.4% G-tube; P = 0.04) and dislodgement (58.3% PEG; 40.8% G-tube). After propensity score matching, G-tube recipients had significantly increased risk for all-cause (HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.56-4.87, P < 0.001) and major complications (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.05-4.23, P = 0.035). There were no significant differences in 1-year rates of readmission (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58-1.38, P = 0.62) or death (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.70-1.44, P = 0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall rate of complications for ICU patients requiring feeding tube in our cohort was 22.3%. ICU patients receiving fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement had significantly elevated risk of 1-year all-cause and major complications compared to those undergoing bedside PEG.

Gastrostomies: experience and complications with three modalities in a tertiary centre over a 26-year period

Objectives

To describe the complications associated with the different gastrostomy techniques [endoscopic (PEG), radiologic (PRG), and surgical (SG)] performed in the last 26 years in a terciary hospital.

Methods

Retrospective observational study. Patients who underwent gastrostomy at the Virgen del Rocío University Hospital between 1995 and 2021 were included. For PEG, the PULL technique was performed until 2018 and subsequently the PUSH technique predominantly. For PRG, a pigtail catheter was used until 2003, a balloon catheter between 2003 and 2009, and a balloon catheter with gastropexy between 2015 and 2021. For SG, the conventional technique (CSG) was performed until 2009 and since then the laparoscopic assisted percutaneous gastrostomy (PLAG) technique. Descriptive analysis was performed obtaining the median and quartiles of the quantitative variables [P50 (P25-P75)] and the frequency for the qualitative variables [n (%)].The comparison of complications between patients who underwent different techniques was performed with Fisher's test.

Results

n = 1,070 (PEG = 608, PRG = 344, SG = 118). The three most frequent indications were head and neck tumors, neurological diseases and gastroesophageal tumors. The percentage of patients who had any complication was 48.9% (PEG-PULL), 23.7% (PEG-PUSH), 38.5% (pigtail PRG), 39.2% (balloon PRG), 29.7% (balloon with gastropexy PRG), 87.3% (CSG), and 41.26% (PLAG). 2 (0.18%) patients died from gastrostomy-related complications. 18(1.68%) presented with peritonitis and 5 (0.4%) presented with gastrocolic fistula. The rest of the complications were minor.

Conclusion

Gastrostomy in any of its modalities is currently a safe procedure with a low rate of complications, most of which are minor.

Endoscopic vs radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are minimally invasive techniques commonly used for prolonged enteral nutrition. Despite safe, both techniques may lead to complications, such as bleeding, infection, pain, peritonitis, and tube-related complications. The literature is unclear on which technique is the safest.

AIM

To establish which approach has the lowest complication rate.

METHODS

A database search was performed from inception through November 2022, and comparative studies of PEG and PRG were selected following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. All included studies compared the two techniques directly and provided absolute values of the number of complications. Studies with pediatric populations were excluded. The primary outcome of this study was infection and bleeding. Pneumonia, peritonitis, pain, and mechanical complications were secondary outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) and we used The Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies (ROBINS-I) to analyze the retrospective studies. We also performed GRADE analysis to assess the quality of evidence. Data on risk differences and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using the Mantel-Haenszel test.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included, including two randomized controlled trials and fifteen retrospective cohort studies. The total population was 465218 individuals, with 273493 having undergone PEG and 191725 PRG. The only outcome that showed a significant difference was tube related complications in retrospective studies favoring PEG (95%CI: 0.03 to 0.08; P < 0.00001), although this outcome did not show significant difference in randomized studies (95%CI: -0.07 to 0.04; P = 0.13). There was no difference in the analyses of the following outcomes: infection in retrospective (95%CI: -0.01 to 0.00; P < 0.00001) or randomized (95%CI: -0.06 to 0.04; P = 0.44) studies; bleeding in retrospective (95%CI: -0.00 to 0.00; P < 0.00001) or randomized (95%CI: -0.06 to 0.02; P = 0.43) studies; pneumonia in retrospective (95%CI: -0.04 to 0.00; P = 0.28) or randomized (95%CI: -0.09 to 0.11; P = 0.39) studies; pain in retrospective (95%CI: -0.05 to 0.02; P < 0.00001) studies; peritonitis in retrospective (95%CI: -0.02 to 0.01; P < 0.0001) studies.

CONCLUSION

PEG has lower levels of tube-related complications (such as dislocation, leak, obstruction, or breakdown) when compared to PRG.

12Fr-Pigtail Versus 14Fr-Balloon Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy (PRG), Retrospective Evaluation of Outcomes and Complications; A Maastricht University Medical Centre Study

PURPOSE

To retrospectively compare tube and placement related results of a 12Fr-pigtail and a 14Fr-balloon gastrostomy tube.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) between January 2016 and June 2020 were enrolled in this retrospective single-center analysis. Follow-up for all patients was 180 days. Mortality after 30 days, technical success, days to first complication within 180 days, reason of unexpected visit (tube, anchor or pain related), and tube specific complications (obstruction, pain, luxation, leakage) were taken as outcome measures. Data were obtained from both PACS software and electronic health records.

RESULTS

A total of 247 patients were enrolled (12Fr-pigtail: n = 139 patients and 14Fr-balloon: n = 108 patients). 30-day mortality was very low in both groups and never procedure related. Technical success was 99% in both groups. The average number of complications within 180 days after initial PRG placement was significantly higher in the 12Fr-pigtail group (12Fr-pigtail: 0.93 vs. 14Fr-balloon: 0.64, p = 0.028). Time to first complication within 180 days was significantly longer in the 14Fr-balloon group (12Fr-pigtail: 29 days vs. 14Fr-balloon: 53 days, p = 0.005). In the 14Fr-balloon group, the rate of tube-related complications (luxation and obstruction) was significantly lower compared to 12Fr-pigtail (29% vs. 45%, p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

14Fr-balloon gastrostomy tubes have significantly lower (tube-related) complications rates and longer time to first complication compared to 12Fr-pigtail tubes. No procedure-related mortality was observed in either group. Technical success was very high in both groups. Level of Evidence Level 3, non-controlled retrospective cohort study.

Outcomes and Complications of Radiological Gastrostomy vs. Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy for Enteral Feeding: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are commonly utilized to establish access to enteral nutrition. However, data comparing the outcomes of PEG vs. PRG are conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an updated systemic review and meta-analysis comparing PRG and PEG outcomes.

Methods

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched until February 24, 2023. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, tube leakage, tube dislodgement, perforation, and peritonitis. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, infectious complications, and aspiration pneumonia. All analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software.

Results

The initial search revealed 872 studies. Of these, 43 of these studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis. Of 471,208 total patients, 194,399 received PRG and 276,809 received PEG. PRG was associated with higher odds of 30-day mortality when compared to PEG (odds ratio (OR): 1.205, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.015 - 1.430, I² = 55%). In addition, tube leakage and tube dislodgement were higher in the PRG group than in PEG (OR: 2.231, 95% CI: 1.184 - 4.2 and OR: 2.602, 95% CI: 1.911 - 3.541, respectively). Perforation, peritonitis, bleeding, and infectious complications were higher with PRG than PEG.

Conclusion

PEG is associated with lower 30-day mortality, tube leakage, and tube dislodgement rates than PRG.

Role of Endoscopy in Management of Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) malignancy is a leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Upper endoscopy has an established role in diagnosing and staging upper GI cancers, screening for pre-malignant lesions, and providing palliation in cases of advanced malignancy. New advances in endoscopic techniques and technology have improved diagnostic accuracy and increased the therapeutic potential of upper endoscopy. We aim to describe the different types of endoscopic technology used in cancer diagnosis, summarize the current guidelines for endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of malignant and pre-malignant lesions, and explore new potential roles for endoscopy in cancer therapy.

Percutaneous Radiology Gastrostomy (PRG)-Associated Complications at a Tertiary Hospital over the Last 25 Years

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to describe and compare the complications associated with different percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective and prospective observational study was conducted. Patients who underwent a PRG between 1995-2020 were included.

TECHNIQUES

A pigtail catheter was used until 2003, a balloon catheter without pexy was used between 2003-2009 and a balloon catheter with gastropexy was used between 2015-2021. For the comparison of proportions, X² tests or Fisher's test were used when necessary. Univariate analysis was performed to study the risk factors for PRG-associated complications.

RESULTS

n = 330 (pigtail = 114, balloon-type without pexy = 28, balloon-type with pexy = 188). The most frequent indication was head and neck cancer. The number of patients with complications was 44 (38.5%), 11 (39.2%) and 54 (28,7%), respectively. There were seven (25%) cases of peritonitis in the balloon-type without-pexy group and 1 (0.5%) in the balloon-type with-pexy group, the latter being the only patient who died in the total number of patients (0.3%). Two (1%) patients of the balloon-type with-pexy group presented with gastrocolic fistula. The rest of the complications were minor.

CONCLUSIONS

The most frequent complications associated with the administration of enteral nutrition through PRG were minor and the implementation of the balloon-type technique with pexy has led to a decrease in them.

Comparative outcomes of endoscopic and radiological gastrostomy tube placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis with GRADE analysis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are invasive interventions used for enteral access. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with assessment of certainty of evidence to compare the risk of adverse outcomes and technical failure between PEG and PRG.

METHODS

We queried PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane from inception through January 2022 to identify studies comparing outcomes of PEG and PRG. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included the risk of colon perforation, peritonitis, bleeding, technical failure, peristomal infections, and tube-related complications. We performed GRADE assessment to assess the certainty of evidence and leave-one-out analysis for sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

In the final analysis, 33 studies, including 26 high-quality studies, provided data on 275,117 patients undergoing PEG and 192,691 patients undergoing PRG. Data from high quality studies demonstrated that, compared to PRG, PEG had significantly lower odds of selected outcomes, including 30-day all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.95; P=0.02), colon perforation (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.49-0.75; P<0.001), and peritonitis (OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.63-0.81; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between PEG and PRG in terms of technical failure, bleeding, peristomal infections or mechanical complications. The certainty of the evidence was rated moderate for colon perforation and low for all other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

PEG is associated with a significantly lower risk of 30-day all-cause mortality, colon perforation, and peritonitis compared to PRG, while having a comparable technical failure rate. PEG should be considered as the first-line technique for enteral access.

Gastrostomy tubes: Fundamentals, periprocedural considerations, and best practices

Gastrostomy tube placement is a procedure that achieves enteral access for nutrition, decompression, and medication administration. Preprocedural evaluation and selection of patients is necessary to provide optimal benefit and reduce the risk of adverse events (AEs). Appropriate indications, contraindications, ethical considerations, and comorbidities of patients referred for gastrostomy placement should be weighed and balanced. Additionally, endoscopist should consider either a transoral or transabdominal approach is appropriate, and radiologic or surgical gastrostomy tube placement is needed. However, medical history, physical examination, and imaging prior to the procedure should be considered to tailor the appropriate approach and reduce the risk of AEs.

Comparative Safety of Endoscopic vs Radiological Gastrostomy Tube Placement: Outcomes From a Large, Nationwide Veterans Affairs Database

INTRODUCTION

A gastrostomy is generally performed in patients who are unable to maintain volitional intake of food. We compared outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and interventional radiologist-guided gastrostomy (IRG) using an integrated nationwide database.

METHODS

Using the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure database, patients who underwent PEG or IRG from 2011 through 2021 were selected using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases codes. The primary outcome was the comparative incidence of adverse events between PEG and IRG. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality. Comorbidities were identified using International Classification of Diseases codes, and adjusted odds ratio (OR) for adverse events were calculated using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 23,566 (70.7 ± 10.2 years) patients underwent PEG and 9,715 (69.6 ± 9.7 years) underwent IRG. Selected frequent indications for PEG vs IRG were as follows: stroke, 6.8% vs 5.3%, P < 0.01; aspiration pneumonia, 10.9% vs 6.8%, P < 0.001; feeding difficulties, 9.8% vs 6.3%, P < 0.01; and upper aerodigestive tract malignancies 58.8% vs 79.8%, P < 0.01. Across all subtypes of malignancies of the head and neck and foregut, the proportion of patients undergoing IRG was greater than those undergoing PEG (P < 0.001). The all-cause 30-day mortality and overall incidence of adverse events were significantly lower for PEG compared with those for IRG (PEG vs IRG): all-cause 30-day mortality, 9.35% vs 10.3% (OR 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.87; P < 0.01); perforation of the colon, 0.12% vs 0.24% (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.86; P = 0.04); peritonitis, 1.9% vs 2.7% (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.58-0.79; P < 0.01); and hemorrhage 1.6% vs 1% (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.18-1.83; P < 0.01).

DISCUSSION

In a large nationwide database of more than 33,000 gastrostomy procedures, PEG was associated with a lower incidence of adverse outcomes and the 30-day mortality than IRG.

Gastrostomy Tube Insertion Complications and Patient Care Outcomes in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Background

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a widely known procedure where an endoscopist inserts a tube through the stomach to provide enteral nutrition. The existing literature shows inconsistent results regarding complication rates, and very few studies have examined the relationship between patient characteristics and PEG outcomes. Therefore, we aimed to investigate PEG tube insertion outcomes and determine different variables associated with these outcomes.

Methods

This retrospective record review included 207 patients who underwent PEG tube insertion at King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, between 2010 and 2021. We obtained variables such as demographics, complications, and length of hospitalization. The Student t-test, chi-square test, and Mann-Whitney test were used in the data analysis.

Results

Of 207 patients, 106 were male (51.2%). The patient's median age was 10 years, and the median length of hospital stay was two days. The PEG-related complication rate was 32.4%, while the 1-year adverse outcome rate was 44.9%. The most common complications were unspecified fever (21.3%) and vomiting (14%). We found a significant relationship between dysphagia and length of hospitalization (P=0.015) and between age and the occurrence of tube leakage (P=0.021). Another significant relationship was found between the number of PEG insertions and gastrostomy-site infection (P=0.046).

Conclusions

This study's results indicate the importance of a thorough review of patients' medical records; some patient characteristics can be valuable predictors of PEG outcomes. Thus, we urge physicians to study each patient to anticipate PEG tube insertion outcomes carefully. Moreover, we recommend that researchers with access to larger patient registries study more variables to reach unified guidelines that ensure the best possible outcomes.

An overview of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in the intensive care unit

Critically ill patients are at increased risk for malnutrition as they often have underlying acute and chronic illness, stress related catabolism, decreased appetite, trauma and ongoing inflammation. Malnutrition is recognized as a leading cause of adverse outcomes, higher mortality, and increased hospital costs. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes provide a safe and effective route to provide supplemental enteral nutrition to these patients. PEG placement has essentially replaced surgical gastrostomy as the modality of choice for longer term feeding in patients. This is a highly prevalent procedure with 160,000 to 200,000 PEG procedures performed each year in the United States. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of current knowledge and practice standards with regards to placement of PEG tube in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). When a patient is considered for a PEG tube, it is important to evaluate the treatment alternatives and identify the best option for each patient. In this review, we provide the advantages and disadvantages of various feeding modalities and devices. We review the indications and contraindications for PEG tube placement as well as the risks of this procedure. We then describe in detail the per-oral pull, per-oral push, and direct percutaneous techniques for PEG tube placement. Additionally, we review the feasibility of having interventional pulmonologists place PEG tubes in the ICU.

Safety of endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement compared with radiologic or surgical gastrostomy: nationwide inpatient assessment

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A gastrostomy tube is often required for inpatients requiring long-term nutritional access. We compared the safety and outcomes of 3 techniques for performing a gastrostomy: percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), fluoroscopy-guided gastrostomy by an interventional radiologist (IR-gastrostomy), and open gastrostomy performed by a surgeon (surgical gastrostomy).

METHODS

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, we identified hospitalized patients who underwent a gastrostomy from 2016 to 2017. They were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Procedure Coding System. The selected patients were divided into 3 cohorts: PEG (0DH64UZ), IR-gastrostomy (0DH63UZ), and open surgical gastrostomy (0DH60UZ). Adjusted odds ratios for adverse events associated with each technique were calculated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 184,068 patients meeting the selection criteria, the route of gastrostomy tube placement was as follows: PEG, 16,384 (53.7 ± 29.0 years); IR-gastrostomy, 154,007 (67.2 ± 17.5 years); and surgical gastrostomy, 13,677 (57.9 ± 24.3 years). Compared with PEG, the odds for colon perforation using IR-gastrostomy and surgical gastrostomy, respectively, were 1.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-2.86; P = .002) and 6.65 (95% CI, 4.38-10.12; P < .001), for infection of the gastrostomy 1.28 (95% CI, 1.07-1.53; P = .006) and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.29-2.01; P < .001), for hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion 1.84 (95% CI, 1.26-2.68; P = .002) and 1.09 (95% CI, .64-1.86; P = .746), for nonelective 30-day readmission 1.07 (95% CI, 1.03-1.12; P = .0023) and 1.13 (95% CI, 1.06-1.2; P = .0002), and for inpatient mortality 1.09 (95% CI, 1.02-1.17; P = .0114) and 1.55 (95% CI, 1.42-1.69; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of a gastrostomy tube (PEG) endoscopically is associated with a significantly lower risk of inpatient adverse events, mortality, and readmission rates compared with IR-gastrostomy and open surgical gastrostomy.

Clinical Factors Associated With Successful Gastrostomy Tube Weaning in Patients With Prolonged Dysphagia After Stroke

Objective

To investigate the clinical factors associated with successful gastrostomy tube weaning in patients with prolonged dysphagia after stroke.

Methods

This study involved a retrospective medical chart review of patients diagnosed with prolonged dysphagia after stroke who underwent gastrostomy tube insertion between May 2013 and January 2020. Forty-seven patients were enrolled and consequently divided into gastrostomy tube sustaining and weaning groups. The numbers of patients in the sustaining and weaning groups were 31 and 16, respectively. The patients’ demographic data, Korean version of Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE) score, Korean version of the Modified Barthel Index (K-MBI), Functional Dysphagia Scale (FDS) score, and Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) score were compared between the two groups. A videofluoroscopic swallowing study was performed before making the decision of gastrostomy tube weaning. The clinical factors associated with gastrostomy tube weaning were then investigated.

Results

There were significant differences in age; history of aspiration pneumonia; K-MMSE, FDS, and PAS scores; and K-MBI between the groups. In the multiple logistic regression analysis, the FDS (odds ratio [OR]=0.791; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.634–0.987) and PAS scores (OR=0.205; 95% CI, 0.059–0.718) were associated with successful gastrostomy tube weaning. In the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the FDS and PAS were useful screening tools for successful weaning, with areas under the curve of 0.911 and 0.918, respectively.

Conclusion

In patients with prolonged dysphagia, the FDS and PAS scores are the only factors associated with successful gastrostomy tube weaning. An evaluation of the swallowing function is necessary before deciding to initiate gastrostomy tube weaning.

Retrospective Analysis of the Safety and Outcomes of Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy in Obese vs Nonobese Patients

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to compare the safety and outcomes of percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) in obese vs nonobese patients.

METHODS

This is an institutional review board-approved retrospective study of 109 patients (male:female, 68:41; mean age, 64.7 years; range, 21-94 years) who underwent PRG with or without gastropexy at a single academic medical center between 2015 and 2018. Body mass index (BMI) of ≥30 kg/m² was defined as obese. Patient demographics, indications, technical success, intraoperative variables, and major/minor complications were analyzed. Major and minor complications occurring within 30 days of the procedure were recorded and categorized based on the Society of Interventional Radiology Quality Improvement guidelines.

RESULTS

Of 109 patients included in the study, 22.9% (n = 25) of patients were obese (average BMI, 34.6 kg/m² ; range, 30-50). Overall technical success in the obese and nonobese groups was 100% each. In the obese vs nonobese group, major and minor complications were not significantly different. There were also no significant differences in procedure time, fluoroscopy time, or contrast volume. However, mean peak skin dose was significantly increased in the obese group vs nonobese group (190.3 ± 224.2 vs 59.1 ± 71.1 mGy; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

PRG is a safe procedure in obese patients with similar technical success, major and minor complication rates, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume. However, PRG is associated with increased radiation dose with obese patients; therefore, optimal methods of radiation protection should be utilized.

Outcomes following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus fluoroscopic procedures in the Medicare population

Background

In the United States, few high-quality manuscripts have directly compared the complication profiles of percutaneous endoscopic versus fluoroscopic gastrostomy. Thus, it is our goal to compare these 2 common procedures to better understand their efficacy and complication profiles.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective analysis of patient records from Medicare parts A/B from 2007 to 2012 was used to identify percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy procedures. Patient demographics were stratified by age, sex, comorbidities, and complications.

Results

A total of 258,641 patients were found to have either percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy (26,477, 10.2%) or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (232,164, 89.8%). Percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy experienced greater rates for all complications queried. Multivariate analysis revealed that the percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy cohort had statistically significant increased odds for short-term complications, such as ileus (odds ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.22–1.54), mechanical (odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 2.28–2.58), wound infection (odds ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.24–1.52), persistent fistula after tube removal (odds ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.78–2.12), and other complications (odds ratio 2.2, 95% confidence interval 2.03–2.37), and long-term complications, including abdominal wall pain (odds ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.33–1.44), wound infection (odds ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval 1.01–1.15), and persistent fistula after tube removal (odds ratio 1.8, 95% confidence interval 1.72–1.87).

Conclusion

Gastrostomy tubes are more frequently being placed via percutaneous endoscopic and fluoroscopic methods. This study suggests that those undergoing fluoroscopic placement have higher odds of developing short- and long-term postoperative complications.

•

Fluoroscopic g-tubes have higher odds of developing short- and long-term complications.

•

Fluoroscopy has higher odds for abdominal wall pain and mechanical complications.

•

Hyperlipidemia, smoking, and hypertension are risk factors for abdominal wall pain.

To PEG or not to PEG that is the question

Nutrition support involves the use of oral supplements, enteral tube feeding or parenteral nutrition. These interventions are considered when oral intake alone fails to meet nutritional requirements. Special diets and oral supplements are usually the first approach to managing malnutrition; however, their role becomes limited when oral intake is restricted or if swallowing is unsafe. Enteral tube feeding or parenteral nutrition are alternative means of providing nutrition support for this select group of patients. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding was introduced into clinical practice in 1980. It describes a feeding tube placed directly into the stomach under endoscopic guidance. It is an established means of providing enteral nutrition to those who have functionally normal gastrointestinal tracts, but who cannot meet their nutritional requirements due to inadequate oral intake. The intervention is usually reserved when nutritional intake is likely to be inadequate for more than 4-6 weeks. Although the benefits of PEG have been shown for a select group of patients, there currently exists concerns about the increasing frequency of this intervention, and also uncertainty about the long-term benefits for certain patients. The 2004 UK National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death report emphasised this concern, with almost a fifth of PEG being undertaken for futile indications that negatively influenced morbidity and mortality. The present review paper discusses the indications for, controversies surrounding and complications of gastrostomy feeding and provides practical advice on optimising patient selection for this intervention.

Nutritional Support of Cancer Patients without Oral Feeding: How to Select the Most Effective Technique?

BACKGROUND

Digestive tumours are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Many cancer patients cannot maintain oral feeding and develop malnutrition. The authors aim to: review the endoscopic, radiologic and surgical techniques for nutritional support in cancer patients; address the strategies for nutritional intervention according to the selected technique; and establish a decision-making algorithm to define the best approach in a specific tumour setting.

SUMMARY

This is a narrative non-systematic review based on an electronic search through the medical literature using PubMed and UpToDate. The impossibility of maintaining oral feeding is a major cause of malnutrition in head and neck (H&N) cancer, oesophageal tumours and malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Tube feeding, endoscopic stents and gastrojejunostomy are the three main nutritional options. Nasal tubes are indicated for short-term enteral feeding. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the gold standard when enteral nutrition is expected for more than 3-4 weeks, especially in H&N tumour and oesophageal cancer patients undergoing definite chemoradiotherapy. A gastropexy push system may be considered to avoid cancer seeding. Radiologic and surgical gastrostomy are alternatives when an endoscopic approach is not feasible. Postpyloric nutrition is indicated for patients intolerant to gastric feeding and may be achieved through nasoenteric tubes, PEG with jejunal extension, percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy and surgical jejunostomy. Oesophageal and enteric stents are palliative techniques that allow oral feeding and improve quality of life. Surgical or EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy is recommended when enteric stents fail or prolonged survival is expected. Nutritional intervention is dependent on the technique chosen. Institutional protocols and decision algorithms should be developed on a multidisciplinary basis to optimize nutritional care.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroenterologists play a central role in the nutritional support of cancer patients performing endoscopic techniques that maintain oral or enteral feeding. The selection of the most effective technique must consider the cancer type, the oncologic therapeutic program, nutritional aims and expected patient survival.

Image guided percutaneous gastrostomy catheter placement: How we do it safely and efficiently

Gastrostomy tube is an effective and safe long-term feeding access that is well-tolerated by patients. The typical placement routes include surgical, endoscopic and interventional radiologic placement. In particular, percutaneous interventional radiologic gastrostomy (PIRG) has increasingly become the preferred method of choice in many practices. Although many PIRG techniques have been developed since the 1980s, there is still a paucity of evidence supporting the choice of a most-optimal PIRG technique. Hence, there is a large variation in institutional approach to PIRG. We are a large, quaternary academic institution with an extensive experience in PIRG. Therefore, we aim to present the “push” PIRG technique utilized in our institution, to review the current literature, to discuss the optimal choice of PIRG technique and to generate further interests in comparison studies.

Percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: a retrospective analysis on outcomes and complications

Background and study aims  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) are techniques used for long-term enteral feeding. Our primary aim was to analyze procedure-related and 30-day mortality and complications between PEG and PRG in relation to indications. Patients and methods  A single-center retrospective analysis was performed thath included all adult patients receiving initial PEG (January 2008 until April 2016) and PRG (January 2010 until April 2016). Outcomes were mortality (procedure-related, 30-day), complications (early (≤ 30 days) and late) and success rates. Results  A total of 760 procedures (469 PRG and 291 PEG) were analyzed. Most common indications were head and neck cancer (HNC), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Success rates for placement were 91.2 % for PEG and 97.1 % for PRG ( P  = 0.001). Procedure-related mortality was 1.7 % in PEG and 0.4 % in PRG ( P  = 0.113). The 30-day mortality was 10.7 % in PEG and 5.1 % in PRG ( P  = 0.481 after multivariate logistic regression) CVA was associated with higher 30-day mortality, whereas ALS, higher body weight, and prophylactic placements in HNC were associated with lower rates. Tube-related complications were less frequent in PEG, both early (2.7 % vs. 26.4 %, P  ≤ 0.001) and late (8.6 % vs. 31.5 %, P  ≤ 0.001). The percentage of major complications and infections did not differ. Conclusions  With respect to procedure-related and 30-day mortality, PEG and PRG compare equally. PRG had a higher procedural success rate. Tube-related complications and pain are less frequent after PEG compared to PRG. The choice for either PEG or PRG therefore should primarily be based on local facilities and expertise.

Radiologic versus Endoscopic Placement of Gastrostomy Tube: Comparison of Indications and Outcomes at a Tertiary Referral Center

OBJECTIVES

Percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement is performed in patients requiring long-term enteral nutrition. Although both endoscopic and fluoroscopic techniques may be used, there are inherent risks and potential complications associated with both procedures that are not generally known to referring physicians. The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast indications for placement and procedurally related complications between fluoroscopic and endoscopic gastrostomy tubes techniques at a tertiary care facility.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed. All consecutive patients with either percutaneous endoscopic (PEG) or percutaneous radiologic (PRG) gastrostomy tube placement between October 2011 and January 2013 were eligible for inclusion. Basic demographic information, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, procedure indication, laboratory data, and use of anticoagulation were recorded. Both direct and indirect procedural complications were documented if they occurred 30 days after gastrostomy tube placement, and were classified and scored based on severity and need for further intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 297 patients met the inclusion criteria, 150 of whom had gastrostomy tubes placed fluoroscopically and 147 of whom had them placed endoscopically. There was no statistically significant difference in direct complications within the first 30 days (PEG 6.8% vs PRG 8%); however, the type of complication observed varied between the two groups. Although superficial wound infections and buried bumpers were more common in the PEG group, bleeding was more common in the PRG group.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of gastrostomy tubes either endoscopically or fluoroscopically is relatively safe with similar indications. Although the complication rate between the two groups was not significant, the types of procedural complications observed did vary.

MDCT evaluation of complications of percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement

Percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement is a commonly performed procedure to provide enteral alimentation to patients unable to tolerate oral feeds. Percutaneous gastrostomy is a relatively safe procedure, and serious complications like gastrointestinal bleeding, perforated viscus, and adjacent organ injury are rare. The most common complications after gastrostomy tube placement occur early and are usually minor. The purpose of this review article is to describe the techniques of percutaneous gastrostomy tube insertion and imaging protocol for gastrostomy tube evaluation, and describe the early, late, and anytime complications. The article will also illustrate very rare late complications of gastrostomy tube placement like gastro-hepatic fistula, gastro-colic fistula, buried bumper syndrome, and gastrostomy site hernia.

Outcomes of radiologically inserted gastrostomy versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

INTRODUCTION

Gastrostomy insertion either via radiological (radiologically inserted gastrostomy, RIG) or endoscopic (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, PEG) approaches are widely practiced throughout Australia. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of inserted tubes and cost evaluation by both methods.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study conducted on all-cause gastrostomy insertions at a quaternary Australian Hospital, Royal Brisbane and Womens' Hospital (RBWH) between January 2012 and August 2015. Current referral pattern is first-line gastrostomy and second-line radiological insertion.

RESULTS

A total of 402 gastrostomy tubes were inserted with a total of 307 PEG tubes and 95 RIG tubes, with follow-up to one calendar year. Mean patient age was 61 years ± 14.2 years with 76% male patients. A total of 84% of patients were head and neck cancer patients; major indications for insertion include prophylaxis (58%), dysphagia (32%) and NBM (2.5%). Patient groups were heterogeneous with varied indications for insertion including prophylaxis, dysphagia, decompression, NBM and treatment side effects. Outcomes measured included the following: complications, premature tube failure prior to expected removal and, overall tube outcome/ disposition. A lower incidence of minor complications was observed with the RIG group than the PEG group without differences in major complications over time. Tube failure due to either blockage or dislodgement was assessed. Multivariate analysis of all-cause dislodgement found 'method of insertion' a predictor of dislodgement with RIG 5.4(OR) times more likely to be dislodged than PEG. Competing risk analysis demonstrates equipment as a significant cause of dislodgement occurring more commonly with RIG than PEG tubes. Tubes were removed more often in the PEG group because a large volume were prophylactic. Tubes were replaced more often in the RIG group, with tube blockage and equipment as causes for tube replacement in this group. Replacements occur either in suite or bedside. Costing data were limited with only 94 patients' costing data qualifying for a limited unit cost evaluation, with radiologically inserted tubes marginally more expensive than tubes inserted endoscopically.

CONCLUSIONS

Both are safe procedures, with improved techniques; radiologically inserted gastrostomies have an improved profile with respect to dislodgement rates than previously reported in the literature. Radiological tubes remain limited by equipment factors with balloon failure an ongoing issue. Cost analysis was hindered by poor documentation; however, the opportunity cost remains an important advantage of radiological insertion at peripheral sites, increasingly relevant for health service delivery in our geographically vast state.

Prediction of risk of adverse events related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a retrospective study

Background:

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a popular method for long-term enteral feeding. Our aim was to determine potential risk factors for adverse events related to PEG, as well as consequent prolonged hospitalization.

Methods:

Data were retrospectively collected from the admission records of a tertiary center between July 2015 and June 2018. Possible predictors of the 3 following outcomes were evaluated: minor PEG-related adverse events, major PEG-related adverse events, and length of hospital stay. Data were tested for correlation using the Spearman coefficient and for association using Kruskal-Wallis tests for significance.

Results:

A total of 362 admissions involving 146 patients were included in the study. Of the admissions, 221 (61.0%) had only minor adverse events, 100 (27.6%) had only major adverse events, and 41 (11.3%) had both. Eighty (22.1%) had PEG-site infection and 128 (35%) had aspiration pneumonia. Serum albumin levels at presentation were negatively correlated with the length of hospitalization (P<0.001), which also differed between patients presenting with major and minor adverse events (P<0.001 and P=0.026). The Charlson comorbidity index was positively correlated with the duration of hospitalization (P<0.001). Higher index scores were found more among patients presenting with aspiration pneumonia (P=0.004) and lower scores were found among patients presenting with PEG site infection and inadvertent PEG removal compared with those presenting with a major complication (P<0.001).

Conclusion:

The patient’s general medical condition and nutritional status are the greatest risk predictors for developing adverse events related to their PEG feeding, as well as a consequent extended hospital stay.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Outcomes and Complications of Percutaneous Endoscopic Versus Radiologic Gastrostomy for Enteral Feeding

BACKGROUND

The optimal technique for long-term enteral feeding has not yet been established. Both percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) are widely used. Aim was to extensively review outcomes of PEG and PRG.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane was performed, using standardized tools for assessing bias. Main outcomes were infectious and tube-related complications, procedure related and 30-day mortality. Pooled risk differences (RDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using random effects. Arcsine transformations were applied.

RESULTS

In total, 344 studies were identified, of which 16 were included, reporting on 934 PEGs and 1093 PRGs. No differences were found for infectious complications [RD, 0.03 (-0.05 to 0.11)], procedure-related mortality [RD, 0.01 (-0.04 to 0.06)], or 30-day mortality [RD, 0.06 (-0.01 to 0.13)]. Tube-related complications were higher in PRG [RD, 0.16 (0.06-0.26)]. Subgroup analysis was performed for head and neck cancer (HNC) and motor neuron disease. In HNC, this revealed significantly lower tube-related complications and procedure-related mortality after PEG. In motor neuron disease, no differences were seen. The level of evidence appears sufficient considering the low degree of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences were found with regard to mortality or infectious complications. PEG showed lower risk of tube-related complications. Subgroup analysis revealed PEG to be favorable in HNC based on lower rates of procedure-related mortality and tube-related complications. Local experience and availability should be taken into account in the decision process.

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.

Complementary roles of interventional radiology and therapeutic endoscopy in gastroenterology

Acute upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding, enteral feeding, cecostomy tubes and luminal strictures are some of the common reasons for gastroenterology service. While surgery was initially considered the main treatment modality, the advent of both therapeutic endoscopy and interventional radiology have resulted in the paradigm shift in the management of these conditions. In this paper, we discuss the patient’s work up, indications, and complementary roles of endoscopic and angiographic management in the settings of gastrointestinal bleeding, enteral feeding, cecostomy tube placement and luminal strictures. These conditions often require multidisciplinary approaches involving a team of interventional radiologists, gastroenterologists and surgeons. Further, the authors also aim to describe how the fields of interventional radiology and gastrointestinal endoscopy are overlapping and complementary in the management of these complex conditions.

Computed tomography-guided percutaneous gastrostomy: initial experience at a cancer center

Gastrostomy is indicated for patients with conditions that do not allow adequate oral nutrition. To reduce the morbidity and costs associated with the procedure, there is a trend toward the use of percutaneous gastrostomy, guided by endoscopy, fluoroscopy, or, most recently, computed tomography. The purpose of this paper was to review the computed tomography-guided gastrostomy procedure, as well as the indications for its use and the potential complications.

Malnutrition in healthcare settings and the role of gastrostomy feeding

Malnutrition can adversely affect physical and psychological function, influencing both morbidity and mortality. Despite the prevalence of malnutrition and its associated health and economic costs, malnutrition remains under-detected and under-treated in differing healthcare settings. For a subgroup of malnourished individuals, a gastrostomy (a feeding tube placed directly into the stomach) may be required to provide long-term nutritional support. In this review we explore the spectrum and consequences of malnutrition in differing healthcare settings. We then specifically review gastrostomies as a method of providing nutritional support. The review highlights the origins of gastrostomies, and discusses how endoscopic and radiological advances have culminated in an increased demand and placement of gastrostomy feeding tubes. Several studies have raised concerns about the benefits derived following this intervention and also about the patients selected to undergo this procedure. These studies are discussed in detail in this review, alongside suggestions for future research to help better delineate those who will benefit most from this intervention, and improve understanding about how gastrostomies influence nutritional outcomes.

Thirty-day mortality after percutaneous gastrostomy by endoscopic versus radiologic placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background/Aims

A percutaneous gastrostomy can be placed either endoscopically (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, PEG) or radiologically (radiologically-inserted gastrostomy, RIG). However, there is no consistent evidence of the safety and efficacy of PEG compared to RIG. Recently, 30-day mortality has become considered as the most important surrogate index for evaluating the safety and efficacy of percutaneous gastrostomy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the 30-day mortality rates between PEG and RIG.

Methods

Major electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane library) were queried for comparative studies on the two insertion techniques of gastrostomy among adults with swallowing disturbance. The primary outcome was the 30-day mortality rate after gastrostomy insertion. Forest and funnel plots were generated for outcomes using STATA version 14.0.

Results

Fifteen studies (n=2,183) met the inclusion criteria. PEG was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality after tube placement compared with RIG (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38–0.94; P=0.026). The pooled prevalence of 30-day mortality of PEG was 5.5% (95% CI, 4.0%–6.9%) and that of RIG was 10.5% (95% CI, 6.8%–14.3%). No publication bias was noted.

Conclusions

The present meta-analysis demonstrated that PEG is associated with a lower probability of 30-day mortality compared to RIG, suggesting that PEG should be considered as the first choice for long-term enteral tube feeding. Further prospective randomized studies are needed to evaluate and compare the safety of these two different methods of gastrostomy.

Laparoscopic-Assisted Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Combined with CT-GC

PURPOSE

Despite the widespread use of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes, their placement may be associated with a variety of complications, including gastrocolic fistula.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, seven high-risk individuals diagnosed using computed tomography (CT)-gastrocolonography (GC) underwent laparoscopic-assisted PEG (LAPEG) placement. Study endpoints included the success of LAPEG under local anesthetic and intravenous sedation, inability to thread the PEG tube, the eventual tube location, the number of tube adjustments needed, adverse events, the operating time, and PEG tube-related infection.

RESULTS

In total, 135 PEG procedures were performed during this study. Successful CT-GC was achieved in all 135 patients, and we successfully used a standard PEG technique to place the gastrostomy tube in 128 patients (95%). In seven patients (5%), the LAPEG technique was used because the transverse colon became interposed between the abdominal wall and the anterior wall of the stomach. LAPEG procedure-related minor complications were observed in two patients.

CONCLUSIONS

LAPEG combined with CT-GC can be used for patients with difficult anatomical orientations and may minimize the risk of complications in PEG placement.

Complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has become the method of choice for mid-to long-term enteral feeding. The majority of complications that occur are minor, but the rare major complications may be life threatening. Some complications occur soon after tube placement, others develop later, when the gastrostomy tract has matured. Older patients with comorbidities and infections appear to be at a greater risk of developing complications. Apart from being aware of indications and contraindications, proper technique of PEG placement, including correct positioning of the external fixation device, and daily tube care are important preventive measures. Adequate management of anticoagulation and antithrombotic agents is important to prevent bleeding, and administration of broad spectrum antibiotics prior to the procedure helps prevent infectious complications. Early recognition of complications enables prompt diagnosis and effective therapy.

Peritonitis following percutaneous gastrostomy tube insertions in children

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous retrograde gastrostomy has a high success rate, low morbidity, and can be performed under different levels of sedation or local anesthesia in children. Despite its favourable safety profile, major complications can occur. Few studies have examined peritonitis following percutaneous retrograde gastrostomy in children.

OBJECTIVE

To identify potential risk factors and variables influencing the development and early diagnosis of peritonitis following percutaneous retrograde gastrostomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case-control study of children who developed peritonitis within 7 days of percutaneous retrograde gastrostomy between 2003 and 2012. From the 1,504 patients who underwent percutaneous retrograde gastrostomy, patients who developed peritonitis (group 1) were matched by closest date of procedure to those without peritonitis (group 2). Peritonitis was defined according to recognized clinical criteria. Demographic, clinical, procedural, management and outcomes data were collected.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight of 1,504 children (2.5%; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-3.5) who underwent percutaneous retrograde gastrostomy developed peritonitis ≤7 days post procedure (group 1). Fever (89%), irritability (63%) and abdominal pain (55%) occurred on presentation of peritonitis. Group 1 patients were all treated with antibiotics; 41% underwent additional interventions: tube readjustments (8%), aspiration of pneumoperitoneum (23%), laparotomy (10%) and intensive care unit admission (10%). In group 1, enteral feeds started on average 3 days later and patients were discharged 5 days later than patients in group 2. There were two deaths not directly related to peritonitis. Neither age, gender, weight, underlying diagnoses nor operator was identified as a risk factor.

CONCLUSION

Peritonitis following percutaneous retrograde gastrostomy in children occurs in approximately 2.5% of cases. No risk factors for its development were identified. Medical management is usually sufficient for a good outcome. Patients with peritonitis are delayed starting feeds and have a hospital stay that is an average of 5 days longer than those without.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus percutaneous radiological gastrostomy for swallowing disturbances

BACKGROUND

Gastrostomy has been established as the standard procedure for administering long-term enteral nutrition in individuals with swallowing disturbances. Percutaneous gastrostomy is a less-invasive approach than open surgical gastrostomy, and can be accomplished via endoscopy (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or PEG) or sonographic or fluoroscopic guidance (percutaneous radiological gastrostomy or PRG). Both techniques have different limitations, advantages, and contraindications. In order to determine the optimal technique for long-term nutritional supplementation many studies have been conducted to compare the outcomes of these two techniques; however, it remains unclear as to which method is superior to the other with respect to both efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of PEG and PRG in the treatment of individuals with swallowing disturbances.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, January 2016); MEDLINE (1946 to 22 January 2016); EMBASE (1980 to 22 January 2016); the reference lists of identified articles; databases of ongoing trials, including the Chinese Cochrane Centre Controlled Trials Register; and PubMed. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PEG with PRG in individuals with swallowing disturbances, regardless of the underlying disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently evaluated the search results and assessed the quality of the studies. Data analyses could not be performed as no RCTs were identified for inclusion in this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no RCTs comparing PEG and PRG for percutaneous gastrostomy in individuals with swallowing disturbances. The large body of evidence in this field comes from retrospective and non-randomised controlled studies and case series. Based on this evidence, both PEG and PRG can be safely performed in selected individuals, although both are associated with major and minor complications. A definitive RCT has yet to be conducted to identify the preferred percutaneous gastrostomy technique.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both PEG and PRG are effective for long-term enteral nutritional support in selected individuals, though current evidence is insufficient to recommend one technique over the other. Choice of technique should be based on indications and contraindications, operator experience and the facilities available. Large-scale RCTs are required to compare the two techniques and to determine the optimal approach for percutaneous gastrostomy.

De novo radiologic placement of button gastrostomy: a feasibility study in children with cancer

BACKGROUND

Primary placement of percutaneous radiologic button gastrostomy has been successfully performed in adults but research is lacking as to its success in children during cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and effectiveness of such treatment at a single center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a 3-year retrospective feasibility study reporting on placement procedure, feeding plan, acute complications and effectiveness of this technique based on the evolution of the weight and weight-to-height during a period of 3 months.

RESULTS

Eleven gastrostomies were performed in 11 children and young adults (3-20 years old) during oncological treatment. No major complications occurred. Two patients experienced minor side effects -- local leakage and granulation tissue formation -- both easily treated. In all cases, enteral feeding started within 24 h following the button placement. The patients were able to go home within 72 h. After 1 month, 64% (7/11) had gained weight, 18% (2/11) had maintained weight and 9% (1/11) had lost weight. After 3 months, 73% (8/11) had gained weight and 9% (1/11) had lost weight.

CONCLUSION

The procedure and devices were well tolerated and mostly effective in our cohort.

Practice variation in PEG tube placement: trends and predictors among providers in the United States

BACKGROUND

Enteral access placement is performed among a variety of providers and specialties, yet there is a dearth of literature on trends and factors related to enteral access placement in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To examine trends in the incidence of enteral access procedures performed by gastroenterologists in the United States.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of upper endoscopic procedures that involved PEG tube placement between 2000 and 2010.

SETTING

Endoscopy sites participating in the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI).

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing upper endoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

PEG tube placement.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Number of PEG tubes placed.

RESULTS

Overall PEG tube placement by a provider from 2000 to 2010 was 1.7% (number of PEG tubes performed/number of upper endoscopies performed), with the majority of them being performed by gastroenterologists. Very young and very old, non-white racial background (Hispanic: odds ratio [OR] 1.21; 95% CI, 1.13-1.28; black: OR 2.24; 95% CI, 2.12-2.36), and men (OR 1.44; 95% CI, 1.39-1.50) were patient characteristics associated with greater PEG tube placement. In terms of practice setting, PEG tube placement occurred more frequently in community and/or health maintenance organization environments and on the East Coast. With respect to provider characteristics, male providers were less likely than female providers to perform a PEG tube insertion (OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.64-0.71), and there was a trend that as providers were further out of medical school they were less likely to perform a PEG tube procedure. Interestingly, surgeons (OR 6.69; 95% CI, 6.18-7.24) and other providers (non-pediatric/non-general practice) (OR 3.22; 95% CI, 2.63-3.94) were more likely to perform PEG tube procedures than were gastroenterologists.

LIMITATIONS

Participation in CORI is voluntary and may not capture data on non-gastroenterologist providers.

CONCLUSION

Significant practice variation was noted in PEG tube placement in the United States with respect to patient and provider characteristics, geographic region, and endoscopy settings.

Computed tomography-gastro-colonography for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy using a helical computed tomography

BACKGROUND

Despite the widespread use of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes, their placement may be associated with a variety of complications, including gastrocolic fistula.

METHODS

In total, 48 individuals underwent computed tomography-gastro-colonography (CT-GC)-guided PEG placement. Study end points included success of CT-GC, inability to thread the PEG tube, the eventual tube location, tube adjustments needed, adverse events, operating time, and PEG tube-related infection.

RESULTS

A successful CT-GC was achieved in all 48 patients (100%), and we successfully used a standard PEG technique to place the gastrostomy tube in 44 patients (92%). In 4 patients (8%), the laparoscopic-assisted PEG technique was used because the transverse colon became interposed between the abdominal wall and the anterior wall of the stomach. The overall procedure-related minor complication rate was 8%.

CONCLUSION

CT-GC is an optional method for the estimation of intra-abdominal, anatomical orientations that may minimize the risk of complications before PEG placement.

Randomized Study of Radiologic vs Endoscopic Placement of Gastrojejunostomies in Patients at Risk of Aspiration Pneumonia

Objective: In patients at risk of aspiration pneumonia due to gastroesophageal reflux who require gastrojejunostomy feeding tubes, the tubes are placed either radiologically (RIGJ) or endoscopically (PEGJ). There is little published evidence of the superiority of one technique over the other. Methods: Patients referred for long-term jejunal feeding were randomly allocated to have a 14F RIGJ or 15F with 9F jejunal extension PEGJ inserted. A technetium-99m (^99mTc) colloid study was done to determine the presence of gastroesophageal reflux and jejunogastric reflux after feeding tube placement. We recorded enteral feed and tube-related complications, in addition to tube-related morbidity and mortality to 90 days following placement. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, with gastroesophageal reflux demonstrated in 52%. Following enteral tube placement, gastroesophageal reflux was not observed by ^99mTc studies or any difference in clinical outcome to 90 days after placement. No jejunal tubes were displaced in any of the 31 RIGJ tubes, while 9 tubes were displaced in the 34 PEGJ patients (P = .008). Reversible jejunal tube blockages occurred: 19 RIGJ (5 patients) and 61 PEGJ (11 patients) (P = .003, χ² = 9.1). Conclusion: There was little difference between the 2 tubes for clinical outcomes. RIGJ tubes were less prone than PEGJ tubes to reversible blockage and displacement. It is likely that the better outcome for RIGJ tubes relates to their larger tube diameter and stiffness.

Metastatic carcinoma to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube sites. A report of five cases

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the clinicopathologic features of metastatic carcinomas at percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube sites.

METHODS

We reviewed the metastatic malignancies at PEG tube sites (2002-2011).

RESULTS

Five patients were identified, each with primary head and neck keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma. The metastases had a mean size of 6.08 cm (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.75-8.41). The time from PEG tube placement to metastasis diagnosis was 9.8 months (95% CI, 6.59-13.01). The survival times from PEG tube placement and from metastasis diagnosis were 23.5 (95% CI, 7.65-39.35) and 13.7 (95% CI, 0-31.08) months, respectively. Compared with a meta-analysis of the largest case series, our male patients were significantly older (mean, 73 years; 95% CI, 62.2-83.9 vs mean 59 years, 95% CI, 56.0-62.0) but had similar survival times.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite their older ages, our male patients had similar survival times to those reported previously. Larger series are needed to confirm our findings and explore the causes.

Predictive factors for early mortality after percutaneous endoscopic and radiologically-inserted gastrostomy

BACKGROUND

Gastrostomy insertion is of benefit to selected patients, but 30-day mortality is as high as 54% in some patient groups. The current study examines risk factors associated with 30-day mortality in a cohort of patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or radiologically-inserted gastrostomy (RIG) in a district general hospital over a 2.5 year period.

METHODS

A retrospective review of case notes was performed for all patients who underwent a PEG (n=53) or RIG (n=40) insertion in the period January 2009-July 2011. PEG/RIG re-insertions were excluded. Demographic, clinical, and biochemical data were analysed. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for early mortality after gastrostomy insertion.

RESULTS

The indications for gastrostomy insertion were similar in the PEG and RIG groups and included mainly dysphagic stroke, chronic neuromuscular disease and head and neck cancer. The patients in the RIG group were older and had a higher incidence of cardiovascular co-morbidities. The overall 30-day mortality was 11% in the PEG and 40% in the RIG group. The multivariate regression analysis suggested that cardiovascular co-morbidities and RIG insertion were independent risk factors for early mortality. The main cause of death 30 days after gastrostomy insertion was pneumonia, which was significantly more common in the RIG group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that PEG should be the procedure of choice when considering gastrostomy insertion and RIG should be reserved as a second-line approach for cases in which PEG is technically difficult or contraindicated.

Insertion of balloon retained gastrostomy buttons: a 5-year retrospective review of 260 patients

PURPOSE

Radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) is an established way of maintaining enteral nutrition in patients who cannot maintain nutrition orally. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of primary placement of a wide bore button gastrostomy in a large, varied patient population through retrospective review.

METHODS

All patients who underwent gastrostomy placement from January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2009 were identified. 18-Fr gastrostomy buttons (MIC-Key G) were inserted in the majority. Follow-up ranged from 6 months to 4.5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 260 patients (M:F 140:120, average age 59.2 years) underwent gastrostomy during the study period. Overall success rate for RIG placement was 99.6 %, with success rate of 95.3 % for primary button insertion. Indications included neurological disorders (70 %), esophageal/head and neck malignancy (21 %), and other indications (9 %). Major and minor complication rates were 1.2 and 12.8 %, respectively. Thirty-day mortality rate was 6.8 %. One third of patients underwent gastrostomy reinsertion during the study period, the main indication for which was inadvertent catheter removal. Patency rate was high at 99.5 %. The maximum number of procedures in any patient was 8 (n = 2), and the average tube dwell time was 125 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary radiological insertion of a wide bore button gastrostomy is a safe technique, with high success rate, high patency rate, and low major complication rate. We believe that it is feasible to attempt button gastrostomy placement in all patients, once tract length is within limits of tube length. If difficulty is encountered, then a standard tube may simply be placed instead.