Literature DB >> 12674688

[Indications and complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy].

Gerhard Aschl1, Andreas Kirchgatterer, Stephan Allinger, Max Hinterreiter, Dietmar Hubner, Wolfgang Kranewitter, Bernhard Stadler, Ludwig Wimmer, Peter Knoflach.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) plays an important role in maintaining enteral nutrition in patients with swallowing disorders of different etiologies. The aim of our study was to record indications and complications of PEG-placement in a one-year period.
METHODS: All patients were investigated prospectively regarding indications, wound infections, other complications and mortality between 1999-10-01 and 2000-09-30. The exit site was examined daily, after 30 days a follow-up by telephone was carried out.
RESULTS: The PEG-procedure was performed in 93 patients, one patient received a percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy. The mean age of the patients was 65.4 years (range 7 months--92 years). The most frequent indications were neurological diseases (n = 61, 65%). 21 patients had a PEG-placement because of malignancies (22%), 9 patients following brain injury (10%) and 3 patients (3%) due to other benign swallowing disorders. 63 patients (67%) had no complications, 28 patients (30%) had wound infections, and in two patients hemorrhage was observed (small hematoma requiring no further intervention). One patient had laparotomy because of suspected perforation--however, laparotomy was negative. In 7 patients (7%) wound infections (n = 28) were mild and needed only local or no therapy. In 18 patients (19%) we found a relevant infection that required systemic antibiotic therapy. 2 patients had serious local infections that caused further interventions. One patient died from sepsis caused by wound infection. Patients receiving antibiotic therapy at the time of PEG-placement suffered from wound infections in 25%. Patients with malignant diseases more often had wound infections. 8 patients died after 7 days and 19 patients after 30 days (8% and 19%, respectively) from their underlying disease.
CONCLUSIONS: PEG is regarded as a small intervention with low morbidity and mortality. However, our analysis of daily practice shows a remarkable rate of complications. The high mortality in our study reflects the seriousness of the comorbidities. Antibiotic therapy failed to prevent wound infection in 25% of our patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12674688     DOI: 10.1007/BF03040290

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr        ISSN: 0043-5325            Impact factor:   1.704


  29 in total

1.  Antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  L Gossner; J Keymling; E G Hahn; C Ell
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 10.093

2.  Antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  T M Sturgis; W Yancy; J C Cole; D D Proctor; B S Minhas; S P Marcuard
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 3.  Complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  G D Schapiro; S A Edmundowicz
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am       Date:  1996-04

Review 4.  [The intestine as an immunological organ].

Authors:  A Stallmach; M Zeitz
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  1998-02-13       Impact factor: 1.704

5.  Complications and outcome of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in different patient groups.

Authors:  M A Chowdhury; R Batey
Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 4.029

6.  Effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  S K Jonas; S Neimark; A P Panwalker
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Antibiotic prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

Authors:  N K Jain; D E Larson; K W Schroeder; D D Burton; K P Cannon; R L Thompson; E P DiMagno
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1987-12       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  [Complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in the elderly: local skin infection and respiratory infection].

Authors:  J Kanie; K Kono; T Kono; M Osawa; T Yamamoto; H Akatsu; H Shimokata; A Iguchi
Journal:  Nihon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi       Date:  2000-02

9.  Long-term enteral feeding: a retrospective comparison of delivery via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasoenteric tubes.

Authors:  D E Fay; M Poplausky; M Gruber; P Lance
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  [The risks of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy].

Authors:  L Gossner; J Ludwig; E G Hahn; C Ell
Journal:  Dtsch Med Wochenschr       Date:  1995-12-22       Impact factor: 0.628

View more
  5 in total

1.  [Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in demented patients].

Authors:  Sandra Fortunat; Georg Röggla
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2003-07-15       Impact factor: 1.704

2.  [Techniques and complications in post-interventional and long-term enteral nutrition].

Authors:  J Teichmann; J F Riemann
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 0.743

Review 3.  Malnutrition in hospital: the clinical and economic implications.

Authors:  Christian Löser
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-12-27       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  [The frequency of wound infections after PEG-placement and utilization of glycogel wound dressing: a randomized controlled trial].

Authors:  Gerhard Aschl; Andreas Kirchgatterer; Manfred Fleischer; Maximilian Hinterreiter; Dietmar Hubner; Wolfgang Kranewitter; Bernhard Stadler; Peter Knoflach
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.704

5.  Reconstructive and rehabilitating methods in patients with dysphagia and nutritional disturbances.

Authors:  Christiane Motsch
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2005-09-28
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.