Limitations of percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy

Safety and efficacy of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube placement compared with surgical jejunostomy: a tertiary care analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Jejunostomy tube placements provides enteral access for feeding in eligible patients who cannot meet their nutritional needs by mouth. They can be surgically placed laparoscopically (lap-J) or with the use of a conventional open laparotomy approach (open-J). Recently, direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) has emerged as an alternative owing to its low cost and shorter recovery times. We sought to retrospectively compare the procedural success rates and adverse events of these methods.

METHODS

Patients were identified by querying our health system patient database and the departmental database of patients who underwent DPEJ. The patients were divided into 3 cohorts based on the procedure: DPEJ, lap-J, or open-J. Patient age and body mass index, procedural success rate, and adverse event rate were compared among the 3 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients met inclusion criteria (65 DPEJ, 111 lap-J, and 25 open-J). Procedural success rates were similar among the 3 groups (DPEJ 96.9%, lap-J 99.1%, open-J 100%; P = .702). Rates of infection and bleeding were also similar among the 3 groups. There were no cases of GI perforation. Tube dysfunction for any reason that required complete removal or replacement within 90 days occurred more often in the surgical groups than in the DPEJ group (DPEJ 0%, lap-J 35.1%, open-J 40.0%; P < .001). This was driven largely by increased rates of tube clogging and tube dislodgement in the surgical groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DPEJ is a safe and effective alternative to surgical jejunostomy in eligible patients and may be associated with decreased adverse event rates at 90 days.

Direct endoscopic placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies with jejunal extension tubes (PEG-J) using ultra-thin endoscopes - long-term outcomes from a U.S. tertiary referral center

INTRODUCTION

Several techniques for PEG-J tube placement have been described, commonly requiring fluoroscopic guidance and/or fixation of the jejunostomy tube (J-tube) into the small intestine. We describe a modified technique for placing jejunostomy tubes under direct visualization through a PEG with the use of ultra-thin endoscopes and steel guidewire.

METHODS

A retrospective study at a single tertiary academic center evaluating patients who underwent PEG-J placement between 2010 and 2020. All PEG tubes were placed with a pull-through technique. The Olympus GIF-N180 endoscope was advanced through the PEG to the jejunum and a Savary-Gilliard guidewire was used for placement of the J-tube extension.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients underwent PEG-J placement (median age 61 years; women 52%). Surgically altered gastric anatomy was observed in 11 patients (19%). Median procedure time was 44 min for new PEG-J tube placement (range 26-103) and 20 min for placement of a J-tube extension through an existing PEG tube (range 9-86) or gastrostomy tract. Technical success rate was in 100%. Sixty-two repeat procedures were performed for J-tube exchange in 27 patients (46%, range 1-9 per patient), of which 51 procedures (82%) were done using the same technique. The most common indication for tube replacement was tube dysfunction (63%, n = 39). The median procedure time for tube exchange was 20 min (range 2-62). No major adverse events were encountered.

CONCLUSION

PEG-J tubes can be placed effectively, rapidly, and safely using an ultra-thin caliber endoscope and a stiff steel wire through the PEG tube or mature gastrostomy site, precluding the need for fluoroscopy or oral access. J-tubes can be easily replaced utilizing the same technique.

Dispelling Myths and Unfounded Practices About Enteral Nutrition

Many protocols and steps in the process of enteral nutrition (EN) use are not overly supported with strong research and have been done the same way over many years without questioning the use of best-practices evidence. This article reports many of the myths and unfounded practices surrounding EN and attempts to refute those myths with current evidence. These practices include those about enteral access devices, formulas, enteral administration, and complications.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension for a post-esophagectomy gastric conduit

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a minimally invasive procedure providing nutritional benefits to malnourished patients. Although a past history of celiotomy is not a contradiction for PEG construction, this procedure is rarely undertaken in post-esophagectomy patients, for two reasons: anatomically limited gastric spaces and high susceptibility to pulmonary aspiration. To overcome these limitations, we developed an original method of introducing PEG with jejunal extension for esophagectomized patients with retrosternal gastric pull-up reconstruction. The procedures were as follows: (1) confirmation of endoscopic transillumination of the antrum; (2) test puncture of the antral wall and subsequent gastropexy using a double-needle device; (3) insertion of a needle jejunostomy catheter into the antrum; (4) direct catheter cannulation to the pylorus and introduction of a feeding tube into the jejunum. We successfully carried out this procedure in three male patients (70-78 years old): two suffering from repetitive aspiration pneumonia and one with extensive recurrence of esophageal carcinoma. The operative times ranged 15-50 min. There were no PEG-associated complications. Of note, none of the patients experienced aspiration pneumonia after PEG construction. Our novel method appears to be a promising approach to managing esophagectomized patients because of its feasibility and the potential to prevent postoperative pulmonary aspiration.

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.

Regional differences in healthcare delivery for gastroparesis

AIM

Few studies have examined the effects of various interventions in gastroparesis. The goal of the present study was to determine whether inpatient management and outcomes differed among states across the United States.

METHODS

Using population statistics and the State Inpatient Database (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), regional differences in admissions for gastroparesis, inpatient mortality, length of stay, nursing home transfers, and rates of endoscopy, gastrostomy placement, and nutritional support were assessed.

RESULTS

Admissions for gastroparesis ranged from 24.3 ± 0.8/100,000 in Utah to 117.1 ± 9.7/100,000 in Maryland, with mortality rates similarly varying fourfold from 0.5 ± 0.1/100,000 in Colorado to 2.3 ± 0.1/100,000 in Florida. Intervention rates differed between states (endoscopy: 6.8 ± 0.8 % in Wyoming versus 23.1 ± 0.4 % in Florida; gastrostomy: 0.8 ± 0.1 % in North Carolina versus 3.3 ± 0.8 % in Hawaii; nutritional support: 1.2 ± 0.2 % in West Virginia versus 7.0 ± 0.6 % in New Jersey). Admissions rates were independently predicted by high overall hospitalizations within a state. Higher population density, median incomes and admissions to for-profit hospitals correlated with endoscopy rates. Coexisting heart failure and male gender were associated with higher likelihood of gastrostomy placement, while initiation of nutritional support was predicted by physician supply and insurance status. Age cohort, Medicare coverage, poverty rates and endoscopic testing independently predicted mortality, while length of stay correlated with diagnostic and therapeutic interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant variability in admissions, interventions and outcomes for gastroparesis. While biological factors, such as comorbidities and age, contribute to this variability, the data suggest that socioeconomic variables significantly affect approaches to gastroparesis treatment in the United States.

Enteral nutrition access devices

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but, in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such situations, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the ASGE Governing Board. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 for articles related to endoscopy in patients requiring enteral feeding access by using the keywords "endoscopy," "percutaneous," "gastrostomy," "jejunostomy," "nasogastric," "nasoenteric," "nasojejunal," "transnasal," "feeding tube," "enteric," and "button." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

DPEJ tube placement prevents aspiration pneumonia in high-risk patients

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or PEG tube with transgastric jejunostomy tube (PEG-J) feeding has not been shown to decrease aspiration pneumonia. The aim of this study was to determine if direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) tube placement results in a decreased incidence of aspiration pneumonia in high-risk patients. The design was a retrospective review of all patients receiving DPEJ tube for aspiration pneumonia from 1999 to 2005. Demographics, incidence of aspiration pneumonia, and outcomes were collected and compared before and after the DPEJ placement. Eleven patients (4 women, 7 men) were identified; their mean age was 44.9 years (range, 18-94 years). The etiologies for recurrent aspiration pneumonia were neurologic disease (9), esophageal surgery (1), and severe debilitation (1). The mean follow-up was 20.9 months (range, 6-48 months). The patients' mean weight increased from 43.8 kg (range, 19-55 kg) to 48.3 kg (range, 30-65 kg) after placement (P < .001). The total number of documented aspiration pneumonia episodes for all patients decreased from 29 (mean, 3.64; range, 1-6) before DPEJ placement to 3 (mean, 0.27; range, 0-2) after DPEJ placement (P < .001). The mean number of aspiration pneumonia events per month prior to the DPEJ placement was 3.39 and postplacement was 0.42 (P < .001). DPEJ placement appears to decrease recurrent aspiration pneumonia in patients with history of aspiration pneumonia.

Colojejunal Fistula Resulting from a D-PEJ Feeding Tube

Numerous procedures have been developed to provide adequate enteral nutrition to patients with gastrointestinal disorders. Previously, operative placement of a feeding gastrostomy or jejunostomy tube was the accepted means of gaining chronic enteral access. However, improved technology and experience with endoscopic techniques have quickly replaced primary operative placement of enteral access. Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (D-PEJ) is a procedure that was designed to deliver enteral feeding solutions for patients with proximal disease after unsatisfactory results from percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes with jejunal extensions (PEG-J). As with any procedure, it is associated with complications. We present the first reported case of a colojejunal fistula resulting from a D-PEJ placement. While D-PEJ has been shown to be relatively safe, complications related to the inherent limitations of the procedure need to be considered when the patient experiences unusual post-procedure symptoms and worked up appropriately.

Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy: outcomes in 307 consecutive attempts

BACKGROUND

Clinical utilization of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) is increasing. However, little data exist regarding important clinical outcomes with DPEJ.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the indications, success, and complications of DPEJ in a large cohort of >300 consecutive attempted DPEJ cases at our institution.

METHODS

Institutional databases identified 316 consecutive attempted DPEJ placements between January 1996 and August 2004. The medical records of consenting patients were abstracted for demographics, indication, success, complications, and follow-up. A scheme for classifying complication severity was designed.

RESULTS

Three hundred and seven attempts at DPEJ were made on 286 patients. Of these, 209 succeeded (68%). The most common indications for DPEJ included resectable distal esophageal cancer, other malignancies causing obstruction, gastroparesis, prior esophageal or gastric resection, and high aspiration risk. Overall, 81 adverse events (AEs) were associated with DPEJ placement or removal in 69 (22.5%) cases. There were 14 serious AEs, 20 moderate AEs, and 47 mild AEs. Serious AEs included 7 bowel perforations, 3 jejunal volvuli, 3 major bleeds, and 1 aspiration. The only death was due to profound jejunal mesenteric bleeding after an unsuccessful trocar pass. Moderate AEs included 9 chronic enterocutaneous fistulae. Many of the 47 mild AEs were site infections requiring oral antibiotics (23) or persistent site pain (14).

CONCLUSIONS

DPEJ was associated with a moderate or severe complication in approximately 10% of cases. While DPEJ is a useful technique to gain enteral access that obviates the need for surgery and is more reliable than percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension, patients and physicians should be aware of the risks involved.

Does the presence of esophagitis prior to PEG placement increase the risk for aspiration pneumonia?

The aim of this study is to determine if the endoscopic presence of esophagitis predicts aspiration pneumonia after the initiation of enteral feedings in a newly placed PEG tube. A retrospective analysis of 278 patients who received a PEG tube from November 1999 to June 2002 was performed. All PEG procedures performed by a single endoscopist were reviewed from the GI Trac database at the Medical University of South Carolina. Eleven of the procedures were aborted due to technical difficulties. Nine patients received the PEG for gastric decompression only. Seven patients died within 14 days of PEG placement from non-PEG-related complications and were excluded. The resulting 251 patients included for our analysis successfully had PEG tube placement and had at least 14 days of enteral feeding. Esophagitis was defined macroscopically by the endoscopic presence of mucosal edema, friability, or obscurity of the normal vascular pattern in the distal esophagus. Aspiration was defined as the witnessed regurgitation of or tracheal suctioning of PEG feedings. Pneumonia as a consequence of aspiration was defined by development of fever and new infiltrate on chest radiograph within 14 days of PEG placement. Two hundred fifty-one patients had PEG placement (M, 127; F, 124; average age, 62.4 year; age range, 18-95 years) performed by a single endoscopist over a 32-month period. Fourteen (5.6%) of these patients had clinically evident pulmonary aspiration, with seven of them developing pneumonia. Thirteen (93%) of these patients had normal esophageal mucosa. One of the 24 patients (4%) with esophagitis or esophageal ulceration present endoscopically had an aspiration event with subsequent pneumonia. None of the 20 patients found to have some other form of esophageal pathology had an aspiration event. The overall incidence of aspiration pneumonia after the initiation of PEG feedings was 2.7% (7/251). The odds ratio that the presence of esophagitis would predict the development of aspiration pneumonia was 1.60, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.18 to 13.89. This study argues that the presence of esophagitis alone does not increase the risk of aspiration pneumonia from PEG feedings. Other factors apart from esophagitis play an important role in the incidence of aspiration pneumonia with PEG feeding

Complications of upper GI endoscopy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of gastrointestinal endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.

Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy with small bowel enteroscopy and fluoroscopy

BACKGROUND

Approaches to the creation of a percutaneous jejunostomy (PEJ) include enteroscopy with jejunal transillumination, fluoroscopy with small bowel distension and tract dilation, and jejunal enteral tube placement through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Although all have been successful, the combination of enteroscopy and fluoroscopy may improve visualization and the success of PEJ placement. This is a description of such a technique and its successful use in 7 patients.

METHODS

The procedure was performed with the patient under conscious sedation in a manner similar to standard PEG placement. The proximal jejunum was visualized and a standard snare was passed though the enteroscope and was opened. A needle and guidewire were directed percutaneously though the snare by using fluoroscopic guidance. Under direct endoscopic visualization the snare was closed around the guidewire. A standard 20F push-type "gastrostomy" tube was passed over the guidewire and through the mouth and the dome seated in the jejunum. A bumper was passed externally over the tube and tightened at the skin.

RESULTS

PEJ placement was successful in all 7 patients. The average length of the procedure was 40 minutes (range 22-64 minutes). There were no major complications. Mean follow-up was 124 days (range 28-308 days). Feeding tubes remained functional until removal (2), death (1), or surgical removal for an unrelated reason (1). Three tubes are still in use.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube placement can be performed successfully with enteroscopy and fluoroscopy. This technique is safe and efficient and provides distal enteral nutritional support for patients in whom PEG cannot be used.

Can percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy prevent gastroesophageal reflux in patients with preexisting esophagitis?

OBJECTIVE

Percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy has been used for preventing pulmonary aspiration arising from gastric contents by concomitant jejunal feeding and gastric decompression in susceptible patients. Our objective was to evaluate gastroesophageal reflux in patients with percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube feeding.

METHODS

Eight cerebrovascular accident patients with percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube placement caused by reflux esophagitis with hematemesis, food regurgitation or vomiting, and/or recurrent aspiration pneumonia were tested for gastroesophageal reflux using 24-h esophageal pH monitoring during continuous jejunal liquid meal or saline infusion with concomitant gastric decompression. Twenty-four hour pH monitoring was also performed during intragastric feeding on a different day.

RESULTS

During the liquid meal feeding period, percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy feeding reduced esophageal acid exposure 46% [12.9% (4.9-28.2%) versus 24.0% (19.0-40.6%), p = 0.01], compared to intragastric feeding. However, in the period of the jejunal tube infusion, esophageal acid exposure was significantly lower during saline infusion than during meal infusion [3.2 (0.0%-10.8%) versus 12.9% (4.9-28.2%), p = 0.008].

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy feeding reduced but did not eliminate gastroesophageal reflux, compared to intragastric feeding in patients with severe gastroesophageal reflux. However, gastroesophageal reflux during percutaneous jejunal feeding was associated with meal infusion. This might, in part, explain the failure of percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube placement to prevent pulmonary aspiration.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy: a critical reappraisal of patient selection, tube function and the feasibility of nutritional support during extended follow-up

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a generally accepted procedure, but the appropriateness of patient selection and the justification of jejunal feeding have not been systematically investigated. Also, a critical appraisal of the applicability and tolerance of nutritional support in the immediate postinsertion period and during prolonged outpatient care is lacking.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data in adult and pediatric patients during a period of 7 years were analyzed. Follow-up data were available at days 1, 7 and 28 and thereafter every 6 to 12 weeks until gastrostomy removal, death or the conclusion of the study.

RESULTS

A PEG was successfully positioned in 268 of the 286 referred patients (94%). A jejunal tube through the PEG (JETPEG) was placed beyond the duodenojejunal ligament in 38 patients. Procedure-related mortality was 1%, 30-day outpatient mortality 6.7%. Total follow-up was 295 patient-years with an overall mortality of 53% (PEG 53%; JETPEG 50%). Both major (8.4%) and minor (24.0%) procedure-related complications in the first 28 days consisted merely of (infectious) wound problems. In prolonged follow-up, the complications were more tube-related. The durability of the tube in surviving patients with a PEG or JETPEG in situ was a median of 495 days (range 162 to 1732 days). Tube dysfunction because of clogging, porosity and fracture occurred after a median of 347 days (range 9 to 1123 days). Nausea, vomiting, bloating and dumping interfered with feeding during the first week and during extended follow-up. Intrajejunal feeding was associated with dumping and diarrhea. In retrospect, the anticipated need of 4 weeks of enteral nutrition was not met in 9.0%. The extension of a PEG into a JETPEG was thought inappropriate in 23.7%. In the remainder, a 91% reduction in aspiration justified its use. The tube life span was equal to or greater than that of a PEG, despite tube dysfunction in 26.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Proper selection of patients for a PEG, i.e., those with an anticipated need of greater than 4 weeks of enteral nutrition, is a challenge. Notwithstanding an increased rate of tube dysfunction, well-selected patients may benefit from a JETPEG. Follow-up is mandatory because many patients might have become malnourished or underfed while on tube feeding, mainly because of GI intolerance.

Efficacy of Jejunogram after Jejunostomy Insertion

The era of managed care has spawned a national debate over the allocation of health care resources. We hypothesized that routine postjejunostomy jejunogram rarely provides additional clinical information or changes patient management and, therefore, is unwarranted. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 128 consecutive patients undergoing feeding jejunostomy tube insertion between January 1995 and December 1996. All patients had postinsertion jejunograms. Eighty-five (66%) of the jejunograms were performed after operative insertion of the jejunostomy, and 43 (33%) were performed after percutaneous reinsertion of a previously placed jejunostomy. Data extracted from the charts include age, sex, indication for jejunogram, length of time prior jejunostomy was in place at time of reinsertion, and results of jejunogram. There were no patients (0%) with misplaced jejunostomy or extravasation of dye, as noted on jejunogram. There were no management changes implemented as a result of jejunogram readings (P < <0.05). The use of routine jejunogram after operative insertion or reinsertion of a prior jejunostomy that has become dislodged or occluded does not alter patient management, incurs unnecessary costs, and, therefore, is unwarranted.

Aspiration-Induced Pulmonary Injury

Pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents can cause a spectrum of sequelae that spans from relatively minor to rapidly lethal disease. To emphasize the extent of this spectrum and to encompass both noninfectious complications and infection, we use the term “aspiration-induced pulmonary injury” rather than “aspiration pneumonia.” In this article we review the relevant literature, focusing on more recent insights into the pathogenesis of lung injury, the natural history of aspiration, risk factors, the relationship between aspiration and infection, and recommendations for management. The relevance to human disease of studies using intra-airway acid instillation in animals is questioned. We discuss the difficulties in predicting the clinical course after aspiration. We identify risk factors for aspiration-induced pulmonary injury that are commonly encountered in the intensive care unit, and discuss in detail factors of special interest to the intensivist, including the impact of tracheal intubation; the effects of enteric intubation, particularly the comparison between pre- and postpyloric routes of enteric feeding administration; and the relative risks associated with particular feeding protocols. We conclude with recommendations regarding treatment and prevention strategies.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Long-term nasogastric tube feeding is often associated with irritation of the hypopharynx or dislocation of the tube. These pitfalls may be circumvented by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Although frequently used in adults, there is limited experience with the procedure in children.

METHODS

A series of 139 patients (aged 3 weeks to 36.5 years, mean age, 4.4 years; weight 3.1-60 kg, mean weight, 15 kg) underwent placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy because of central dysphagia (n = 103); general dystrophy caused by chronic renal failure, congenital heart disease, neoplasms, or cystic fibrosis (n = 26); requirement for special diets (n = 7); malnutrition related to respiratory insufficiency (n = 2); and gastric volvulus (n = 1).

RESULTS

The percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy was placed either in the stomach (n = 122) or in the duodenum (n = 15). In two patients a direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy was performed, because duodenal placement proved impossible. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies were placed using intravenous sedation (midazolam, etomidate, or diazepam). None of the patients required general or inhalation anesthesia. We observed 19 complications including: dislocation of the duodenal part into the stomach (n = 5); inflammation at the insertion site (n = 3); perforation of the stomach (n = 2), which healed under conservative treatment; disconnection of the retention disk (n = 4); occlusion of the tube (n = 4), and chronic vomiting (n = 1). Mean lifetime of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy was more than 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy provides a major improvement for children requiring long-term tube feeding. High efficacy and low rates of complication suggest that percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy should be considered more often, even in infants.

Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomies for enteral feeding

BACKGROUND

Enteral feeding through percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is increasingly utilized in hospitals, homes, and institutions. However, PEGs have two major limitations: (1) risk for aspiration, which occurs in up to 30% of patients, and (2) it does not allow enteral feeding in patients with gastric outlet obstruction, gastroparesis, or gastric resection.

METHODS

A new endoscopic method for placement of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) was attempted in 150 patients with or without a history of major abdominal surgery. Patients were followed-up until tube utilization ceased because of death or resumption of oral feeding.

RESULTS

There were 129 (86%) successful procedures and 21 (14%) unsuccessful attempts. Procedure-related complications included nine (6%) incisional infections. Bleeding, abscess, and colonic perforation each occurred in one patient (.6%), and all required surgical intervention. On long-term follow-up (n = 97), tube malfunction occurred in 3 patients (3%) and aspiration in 3 (3%). Duration of tube use in this population was 113 +/- 173 days.

CONCLUSIONS

DPEJs can be performed successfully with a low complication rate. Enteral feeding through DPEJs drastically reduces aspiration, which commonly occurs with PEG feeding. DPEJs allow feeding and hydration of patients with gastric outlet obstruction due to cancer who are not surgical candidates, eliminate the need for intravenous hydration and feeding, and can cut costs of hospitalization and treatment.

Certification of staff nurses to insert enteral feeding tubes using a research-based procedure

Nutrition Support Nurse Clinicians at a Central Texas tertiary care facility have developed a research-based nasoenteric feeding tube insertion procedure that minimizes the potential for inadvertent passage of a feeding tube containing a stylet into the respiratory tract and maximizes placement of the feeding tube in the desired gastric or duodenal location. The first 79 staff nurses to be certified to use the technique had a 90% duodenal placement success rate under supervision. No bedside feeding tube insertion complications have been noted since the initiation of the certification program 6 years ago. This article describes the feeding tube insertion technique used in the certification process and the research on which it is based.

Decision-making for enteral feeding administration: the why behind where and how

Enteral nutrition has become the preferred route of nutrient administration. Because of vigorous attempts to deliver nutrient enterally in expanded patient groups, many different locations for enteral access have been advocated along with a variety of methods related to rate and pattern of delivery. Because all modes of delivery are not compatible with all sites of access and both need to be tailored to specific subsets of patients, confusion can develop regarding where and how enteral nutrients are best delivered and why. In an era when such a high priority has been placed on feeding through the enteral route, a review of the methods and rationale behind the ever-expanding choices of enteral access is timely.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy: a dual center safety and efficacy trial

Although jejunal tube placement through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has not been proven to be preferable to PEG feeding, it would be theoretically advantageous for those patients prone to gastrointestinal aspiration. However, reliable placement of a small bowel feeding tube through a PEG has been technically difficult. We have previously reported successful placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy (PEG/J) with minimal complications. These results are in contrast to other series that report technical difficulty, frequent tube dysfunction and gastric aspiration. We describe an over-the-wire PEG/J technique performed by multiple operators at two medical centers. Gastrostomy tube placement was successful in 94% of patients. Initial placement of the jejunal tube was successful in 88% of patients. Second attempts were 100% successful. The average procedure time was 36 minutes. The distal duodenal and jejunal placement of the jejunal tube resulted in no episodes of gastroduodenal reflux. Complications included jejunal tube migration (6%), clogging (18%), and unintentional removal (11%). The majority of patients were ultimately converted to either oral or intragastric feedings. We conclude that the PEG/J system is a reliable, reproducible method of small bowel feeding and is associated with no episodes of tube feeding reflux when the jejunal tube is positioned in the distal duodenum or beyond. Furthermore, it provides a temporary nutritional bridge for those patients who are later transitioned to either PEG or oral feeding.

Comparison of four bedside indicators used to predict duodenal feeding tube placement with radiography

The validity of four indicators to predict successful duodenal feeding tube placement was evaluated in a prospective trial. Data were collected on each indicator at prepyloric (< or = 65 cm) and postpyloric (> or = 75 cm) feeding tube lengths. Feeding tubes were placed in 106 patients. Eighteen feeding tubes were located in the stomach, and 88 were in the duodenum. Auscultation (progression of loudest sound locations from the left to the right abdomen) had a positive predictive value of 85% (negative predictive value, 31%). The vacuum effect (a change from 40 mL of aspirated air to < or = 10 mL after 60 mL of air instillation) had a positive predictive value of 86% (negative predictive value, 45%) and was significantly correlated with duodenal placement (p = .02). Aspirate was present at prepyloric and postpyloric lengths in 35 cases. Ten of these 35 cases had the defined change in pH from < or = 4.0 to > or = 6.0 (positive predictive value, 100%; negative predictive value, 28%). The positive predictive value of color (a change to yellow) was also 100% (n = 11); the negative predictive value was 29%. The low negative predictive values of the indicators suggest that the absence of defined changes is of no assistance in discriminating between stomach and duodenal placement. A positive auscultation or vacuum effect test is not conclusive for duodenal placement. A positive pH or color change test may obviate the need for a confirmatory radiograph.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Enteral access

The enteral route is the preferred method of nutrition support in patients with functional gastrointestinal tracts. Many techniques for obtaining enteral access are available, and the decision regarding which one to use depends on several issues, including anticipated duration of support, aspiration risk, and local expertise. Using laparotomy, laparoscopy, fluoroscopy, or endoscopy, tubes can be placed into the stomach, the duodenum, and the jejunum. Nasogastric and nasoenteric tubes are useful for short-term supplementation; however, patients needing support for more than 6 weeks may be better served with a more permanent tube. In this review, specific methods for obtaining enteral access are discussed along with their advantages and disadvantages.