PURPOSE: To compare percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in terms of tolerance, efficacy, and survival in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with ALS (17 men; mean age, 66.1 years; range, 39-83 y) underwent 21 PEG and 22 PRG attempts (including three unsuccessful PEG attempts) from 1999 to 2005. To assess tolerance and efficacy, a successful and well tolerated placement was defined as any successful placement with no major or minor local complications or pain requiring opioid analgesic agents. Univariate analysis was performed for all recorded parameters, followed by multivariate analysis for successful and well tolerated placement, 6-month mortality rate, and survival. RESULTS: General success rates were 85.7% for PEG and 100% for PRG. Pain was more frequent in PRGs (81.8% vs 52.4%; P = .05). Successful and well tolerated placement was seen in 81.8% of PRGs and 57.1% of PEGs (P = 0.1). Advanced age (P = .02) and PRG (P = .07) were predictive of successful and well tolerated placement. The interval from diagnosis to placement (P = .001) and ability to perform spirometry (P = .002) were predictive of survival. Oximetry measurements (P = .007) and interval from diagnosis to placement (P = .02) were predictive of mortality at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: PRG is more efficacious and better tolerated than PEG, essentially because it avoids the respiratory decompensation that may occur in PEG. Therefore, PRG should be preferred in cases of ALS. Survival is linked to ALS evolution and not to the choice of PRG or PEG placement. Copyright 2010 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: To compare percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in terms of tolerance, efficacy, and survival in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with ALS (17 men; mean age, 66.1 years; range, 39-83 y) underwent 21 PEG and 22 PRG attempts (including three unsuccessful PEG attempts) from 1999 to 2005. To assess tolerance and efficacy, a successful and well tolerated placement was defined as any successful placement with no major or minor local complications or pain requiring opioid analgesic agents. Univariate analysis was performed for all recorded parameters, followed by multivariate analysis for successful and well tolerated placement, 6-month mortality rate, and survival. RESULTS: General success rates were 85.7% for PEG and 100% for PRG. Pain was more frequent in PRGs (81.8% vs 52.4%; P = .05). Successful and well tolerated placement was seen in 81.8% of PRGs and 57.1% of PEGs (P = 0.1). Advanced age (P = .02) and PRG (P = .07) were predictive of successful and well tolerated placement. The interval from diagnosis to placement (P = .001) and ability to perform spirometry (P = .002) were predictive of survival. Oximetry measurements (P = .007) and interval from diagnosis to placement (P = .02) were predictive of mortality at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS:PRG is more efficacious and better tolerated than PEG, essentially because it avoids the respiratory decompensation that may occur in PEG. Therefore, PRG should be preferred in cases of ALS. Survival is linked to ALS evolution and not to the choice of PRG or PEG placement. Copyright 2010 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Johannes Dorst; Luc Dupuis; Susanne Petri; Katja Kollewe; Susanne Abdulla; Joachim Wolf; Markus Weber; David Czell; Christian Burkhardt; Frank Hanisch; Stefan Vielhaber; Thomas Meyer; Gabriele Frisch; Dagmar Kettemann; Torsten Grehl; Bertold Schrank; Albert C Ludolph Journal: J Neurol Date: 2015-01-25 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Joo Hyun Lim; Seung Ho Choi; Changhyun Lee; Ji Yeon Seo; Hae Yeon Kang; Jong In Yang; Su Jin Chung; Joo Sung Kim Journal: Intest Res Date: 2016-10-17
Authors: Denise Strijbos; Daniel Keszthelyi; Lennard P L Gilissen; Martin Lacko; Janneke G J Hoeijmakers; Christiaan van der Leij; Rogier J J de Ridder; Michiel W de Haan; Ad A M Masclee Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2019-10-23