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

Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) are minimally invasive gastrostomy techniques for individuals requiring prolonged enteral feeding. Recent meta-analyses concerning their efficacy and safety mainly included retrospective studies and yielded conflicting results. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare efficacy, safety, and procedure time between PRG and PEG for enteral feeding.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible RCTs comparing PRG and PEG for enteral feeding through February 23, 2024. The primary outcome was technical success. The secondary outcomes were (1) adverse events (AEs), (2) mortality, and (3) procedure time. We used the random-effects model to calculate pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% CIs for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

Five RCTs with 544 patients (268 PRG and 276 PEG) were included. There was similar technical success (RR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.98-1.05; I² = 35%; moderate certainty of evidence because of inconsistency), overall mortality (RR = 1.25; 95% CI = 0.63-2.47; I² = 47%; very low certainty of evidence because of inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision), and overall AEs risk (RR = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.63-1.76; I² = 81%; low certainty of evidence because of inconsistency and imprecision) between the two groups. However, compared with PEG, the procedure time was longer in the PRG group (MD = 19.35 min; 95% CI = 0.95-37.75 min; I² = 98%; very low certainty of evidence because of inconsistency and imprecision).

CONCLUSION

PRG and PEG demonstrate similar efficacy and safety; however, the endoscopic technique may boast a shorter procedure time.

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.

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.

Home Enteral Nutrition: Towards a Standard of Care

The purpose of this overview is to make the case for the establishment and publication of standards for home enteral nutrition (HEN) therapy in adult patients who require a long-term alternative to oral feeding. Overviews can provide a broad and often comprehensive summation of a topic area and, as such, have value for those coming to a subject for the first time. It will provide a broad summation, background and rationale, review specific considerations unique to HEN (tubes, products and supplies) and we describe a recent audit of seven HEN programs which highlights tube and process related challenges. Based on the overview of the literature and our experience with the audit we propose a way forward for best home enteral nutrition care.

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.

Enteral tube feeding for individuals with cystic fibrosis: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation evidence-informed guidelines

Nutrition is integral to the care of individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF). Better nutritional status is associated with improved pulmonary function. In some individuals with CF, enteral tube feeding can be useful in achieving optimal nutritional status. Current nutrition guidelines do not include detailed recommendations for enteral tube feeding. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation convened an expert panel to develop enteral tube feeding recommendations based on a systematic review of the evidence and expert opinion. These guidelines address when to consider enteral tube feeding, assessment of confounding causes of poor nutrition in CF, preparation of the patient for placement of the enteral feeding tube, management of the tube after placement and education about enteral feeding. These recommendations are intended to guide the CF care team, individuals with CF, and their families through the enteral tube feeding process.