BACKGROUND: Due to its high efficacy and technical simplicity, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has gained wide-spread use. Local infection, occurring in approximately 2% to 39% of procedures, is the most common complication in the short term. Risk factors for local infection are largely unknown and therefore--apart from calculated antibiotic prophylaxis--preventive strategies have yet to be determined. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential patient- and procedure-related risk factors for peristomal infection following PEG tube placement. METHODS: Potential patient-related (eg, age, sex, diseases, body mass index, concomitant antibiotic therapy) and procedure-related (endoscopist experience, institutional factors, findings on endoscopy) risk factors and their coincidence with local infection, defined as a positive peristomal infection three days after PEG tube placement, were evaluated at two institutions. A standardized antibiotic prophylaxis was not performed. The peristomal infection score was also evaluated in 390 patients. RESULTS: Using a multivariate binary regression analysis, four risk factors were established as relevant for local infection after PEG: clinical institution (OR 6.69; P = 0.0001), size of PEG tubes (15 Fr versus 9 Fr; OR 2.12; P = 0.05), experience of the endoscopist (more than 100 investigations versus less than 100 investigations; OR 0.54; P = 0.05) and the existence of a malignant underlying disease (OR 2.28; P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Similar to other endoscopic interventions, local infection as a complication of PEG tube placement depends on the experience of the endoscopist. Institutional factors also play a significant role. Additional risk factors include PEG tube size and underlying diseases. These findings indicate that the local infection after PEG tube placement may be influenced by both endoscopy-associated factors and by the underlying disease status of the patient.
BACKGROUND: Due to its high efficacy and technical simplicity, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has gained wide-spread use. Local infection, occurring in approximately 2% to 39% of procedures, is the most common complication in the short term. Risk factors for local infection are largely unknown and therefore--apart from calculated antibiotic prophylaxis--preventive strategies have yet to be determined. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential patient- and procedure-related risk factors for peristomal infection following PEG tube placement. METHODS: Potential patient-related (eg, age, sex, diseases, body mass index, concomitant antibiotic therapy) and procedure-related (endoscopist experience, institutional factors, findings on endoscopy) risk factors and their coincidence with local infection, defined as a positive peristomal infection three days after PEG tube placement, were evaluated at two institutions. A standardized antibiotic prophylaxis was not performed. The peristomal infection score was also evaluated in 390 patients. RESULTS: Using a multivariate binary regression analysis, four risk factors were established as relevant for local infection after PEG: clinical institution (OR 6.69; P = 0.0001), size of PEG tubes (15 Fr versus 9 Fr; OR 2.12; P = 0.05), experience of the endoscopist (more than 100 investigations versus less than 100 investigations; OR 0.54; P = 0.05) and the existence of a malignant underlying disease (OR 2.28; P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Similar to other endoscopic interventions, local infection as a complication of PEG tube placement depends on the experience of the endoscopist. Institutional factors also play a significant role. Additional risk factors include PEG tube size and underlying diseases. These findings indicate that the local infection after PEG tube placement may be influenced by both endoscopy-associated factors and by the underlying disease status of the patient.
Authors: I Ahmad; A Mouncher; A Abdoolah; R Stenson; J Wright; A Daniels; J Tillett; A B Hawthorne; G Thomas Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2003-07-15 Impact factor: 8.171
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
Authors: Fatih Ermis; Melih Ozel; Kemal Oncu; Yusuf Yazgan; Levent Demirturk; Ahmet Kemal Gurbuz; Taner Akyol; Hasan Nazik Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Sin Won Lee; Jeong Hoon Lee; Hyungjin Cho; Yeonjung Ha; Hyun Lim; Ji Yong Ahn; Kwi Sook Choi; Do Hoon Kim; Kee Don Choi; Ho June Song; Gin Hyug Lee; Hwoon-Yong Jung; Jin-Ho Kim Journal: Clin Endosc Date: 2014-11-30
Authors: Hans Juergen Richter-Schrag; Sabine Richter; Olaf Ruthmann; Manfred Olschewski; Ulrich Theodor Hopt; Andreas Fischer Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: K Gundogan; A Yurci; R Coskun; M Baskol; S Gursoy; G Hebbar; M Sungur; T R Ziegler Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Radek Kroupa; Jana Jurankova; Milan Dastych; Michal Senkyrik; Tomas Pavlik; Jitka Prokesova; Marketa Jecmenova; Jiri Dolina; Ales Hep Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 3.411