Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy complication rates and compliance with the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines for the management of antithrombotic therapy

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Does Not Increase Bleeding Risk in Percutaneous Gastrostomy Tube Placement: Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Gastrostomy tube (G tube) is a commonly performed procedure for nutritional support. Current guidelines recommend discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) prior to G tube placement to reduce bleeding risk.

AIMS

We aim to compare bleeding risk in single, dual and no antiplatelet therapy during G tube placement.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Sciences to include comparative studies evaluating single antiplatelet (aspirin, clopidogrel), dual antiplatelet (DAPT, aspirin and clopidogrel), and no antiplatelet therapy. Direct as well as network meta-analyses comparing these arms were performed. Risk Differences (RD) with confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

12 studies with 8471 patients were included. On direct meta-analysis, there was no significant difference noted between DAPT compared to Aspirin (RD 0.001 95% CI - 0.012 to 0.014, p = 0.87), Clopidogrel (RD 0.001 95% CI - 0.009 to 0.010, p = 0.92) or no antiplatelet group (RD 0.007 95% CI - 0.011 to 0.026, p = 0.44). Results were consistent on network meta-analysis and no difference was noted in bleeding rates when comparing DAPT with Aspirin (RD 0.001, 95% CI - 0.007 to 0.01, p = 0.76), Clopidogrel (RD 0.001, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.011, p = 0.90) and no antiplatelet group (RD 0.002, 95% CI - 0.007 to 0.012, p = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

There is no significant difference in bleeding risk between DAPT, single antiplatelet or no antiplatelet therapy on a population level. On an individual level, risk of ischemic events should be weighed against the risk of bleeding based on patient circumstances and risk profile. Our findings offer to provide additional data to make an informed decision between patients and physicians to make clinical decisions by assessing individual risks and benefits for optimal care of complex patients.

Factors affecting late complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube replacement

BACKGROUND

Late complications associated with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube in patients are common occurrences. We aimed to identify risk factors associated with PEG-related late complications.

METHODS

Patients who underwent PEG exchange were retrospectively collected from electronic medical records between January 2015 and November 2020. Medical records were reviewed longitudinally from the PEG replacement date until the first complication event, death, or the end of the study. The late complication was defined as the PEG-related complications six months after the initial PEG placement. Potential risk factors were tested using Cox proportional hazard.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients (mean age 80.5 ± 17.6 years, 52.6% male) were enrolled with a 12 (4-23) months median follow-up. The indications were mostly neurologic disease (89.7%). Non-balloon PEG was used in 93 (80.2%) patients with balloon-type in 23 (19.8%) patients. PEG-related late complications developed in 35 (30.2%) patients with a median time of 9 (4-23) months. In the multivariate analysis, the PEG-related late complication rate was significantly higher in patients with balloon-type PEG tube (HR 5.54; 95%CI, 2.55-12.05; p < 0.001) and also showed a significantly higher cumulative incidence of developing complications (54.9% vs. 12.8% at one year and 76% vs. 22.8% at two years, p < 0.001). The most common complication was PEG dislodgement (n = 14, 40%).

CONCLUSION

Late-onset of PEG tube-associated complications is a common problem. The significant factor associated with PEG tube complication was balloon-type PEG placement.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and jejunostomy: Indications and techniques

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

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.

Anticoagulation and antiplatelet management in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A review of current evidence

The role of endoscopic procedures, in both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes is continually expanding and evolving rapidly. In this context, endoscopists will encounter patients prescribed on anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications frequently. This poses an increased risk of intraprocedural and delayed gastrointestinal bleeding. Thus, there is now greater importance on optimal pre, peri and post-operative management of anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy to minimise the risk of post-procedural bleeding, without increasing the risk of a thromboembolic event as a consequence of therapy interruption. Currently, there are position statements and guidelines from the major gastroenterology societies. These are available to assist endoscopists with an evidenced-based systematic approach to anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet management in endoscopic procedures, to ensure optimal patient safety. However, since the publication of these guidelines, there is emerging evidence not previously considered in the recommendations that may warrant changes to our current clinical practices. Most notably and divergent from current position statements, is a growing concern regarding the use of heparin bridging therapy during warfarin cessation and its associated risk of increased bleeding, suggestive that this practice should be avoided. In addition, there is emerging evidence that anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy may be safe to be continued in cold snare polypectomy for small polyps (< 10 mm).

[Eight cases of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) in patients taking oral anticoagulants]

Patients who undergo percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement are often on antiplatelet therapy. There is a potential risk of infarction if these medications are discontinued.The guidelines of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, classify PEG as an operation associated with a high risk of bleeding; however, it is known that surgery can be performed without interruption when patients are treated with low-dose aspirin alone. Nevertheless, we experienced the case of severe bleeding at the incision site, which was accompanied by massive hematemesis and hemorrhagic shock the night after PEG using the modified introducer method in an 87-year-old male patient. The patient was being treated with Bayer aspirin (100 mg/day, oral). The patient's platelet count, PT, and APTT were within the normal levels. Thus, we decided to investigate the pull method as the effective method for pressure hemostasis comparing with the modified introducer method, to reduce the risks associated with bleeding after surgery when patients are being treated with antiplatelet drugs.PEG was performed by the pull method on eight patients who were being treated with oral antiplatelet drugs (including four patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy [DAPT]). All patients had previously suffered strokes, and they all presented with normal platelet counts, PT, and APTT values.Only slight bleeding was observed in one out of eight patients (bleeding had stopped by the following day using an alginate patch on the abdominal wall at the incision site, along with direct pressure using a stationary plate). None of the patients showed infection at the incision site.Although the study population was small, the present study showed that PEG using the pull method is safe while patients are being treated with oral antiplatelet drugs.

Bleeding risk with clopidogrel and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

AIM

To compare bleeding within 48 h in patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) with or without clopidogrel.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, a retrospective study involving a single center was conducted on adult patients having PEG (1/08-1/14). Patients were divided into two groups: Clopidogrel group consisting of those patients taking clopidogrel within 5 d of PEG and the non-clopidogrel group including those patients not taking clopidogrel within 5 d of the PEG.

RESULTS

Three hundred and nineteen PEG patients were found. One hundred and sixty-eight males and 151 females with mean body mass index 28.47 ± 9.75 kg/m² and mean age 65.03 ± 16.11 years were identified. Thirty-three patients were on clopidogrel prior to PEG with 286 patients not on clopidogrel. No patients in either group developed hematochezia, melena, or hematemesis within 48 h of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). No statistical differences were observed between the two groups with 48 h for hemoglobin decrease of > 2 g/dL (2 vs 5 patients; P = 0.16), blood transfusions (2 vs 7 patients; P = 0.24), and repeat endoscopy for possible gastrointestinal bleeding (no patients in either group).

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, no significant post-procedure bleeding was observed in patients undergoing PEG with recent use of clopidogrel.

Risk factors for complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a commonly performed procedure for patients with severe dysphagia leading to malnutrition. Improved knowledge of risk factors for PEG-related complications might decrease patient discomfort and healthcare costs.

AIM

The aim of the present study was to investigate factors associated with complications after PEG.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for all patients referred for PEG placement from December 2002 to December 2012 in single-tertiary care center. PEG-related complications and risk factors were evaluated through chart reviews, endoscopic reports, and endoscopic and radiologic images.

RESULTS

Among a total of 245 consecutive individuals (146 male, mean age 59.2 ± 12.6 years) enrolled, 43 major complications had developed. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients with an internal bolster of a PEG tube in the upper body of stomach were at significant risk for early [OR 6.127 (95 % CI 1.447-26.046)] and late complications [OR 6.710 (95 % CI 1.692-26.603)]. Abnormal leukocyte counts [OR 3.198 (95 % CI 1.174-8.716)], stroke as an indication for PEG [OR 3.047 (95 % CI 1.174-8.882)], and PEG tube placement by an inexperienced endoscopist [OR 3.401 (95 % CI 1.073-10.779)] were significantly associated with early complications.

CONCLUSIONS

A PEG tube should not be inserted into the upper body of stomach to reduce complication risk, and PEG procedures should be performed by skilled endoscopists to prevent early complications. An abnormal leukocyte count can be a predictor of early complication, and care is needed when PEG is performed for patients with stroke.

In-hospital and long-term outcomes after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with malignancy

BACKGROUND

Although percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is widely performed for nutrition or palliation, PEG-associated outcomes in cancer patients remain poorly described. We examined the safety and benefits of PEG placement in this population at our institution.

STUDY DESIGN

A 5-year retrospective review of patients with malignancy (excluding head/neck and thoracic malignancy) who underwent PEG at our institution was performed.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-nine patients with malignancy underwent PEG; 33.9% had hematologic malignancy, 66.1% had nonhematologic malignancy, and 44.4% had metastatic disease. Indications for PEG were enteral access (73%) and gastric decompression/management of obstructive symptoms (27%). Few patients achieved independence from total parenteral nutrition (22%) or diet advancement (24.6%). Overall rates of major complications (eg, aspiration, tube dislodgement/leakage, bleeding, visceral injury, respiratory failure after procedure, and cardiac arrest) and minor complications (eg, superficial infection and ileus) were 10.2% and 11.3%, respectively. All-cause in-hospital mortality was high (19.6%) and was associated with ICU admission (p = 0.018), earlier bone marrow transplantation (p = 0.022), steroid treatment (p = 0.024), and lower preoperative albumin (p = 0.003). Code status was changed after PEG in 44 patients from full code to DNR/do no intubate or comfort measures only.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement in this study population was associated with major procedure-related complications. The majority of patients failed to achieve total parenteral nutrition independence or advancement of diet. Nearly 25% of patients declined aggressive resuscitation strategies after undergoing surgery for PEG. This study cautions to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of PEG placement in this patient population. Prospective studies are needed to uncover factors affecting the decision process and patient selection.