BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) allows long-term tube feeding. Safety of pull-type and introducer PEG placement in oncology patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancies is unknown. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 299 patients undergoing PEG tube placement between January 2006 and December 2008 revealed 57 oncology patients. All patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancy were treated with chemo- and radiotherapy. In case of high-grade stenosis introducer Freka® Pexact PEG tube was placed (n = 24) and in all other patients (n = 33) conventional pull-type PEG tube. Short-term complications and mortality rates were compared. RESULTS: Patients' characteristics and clinical status were comparable in both groups. Short-term complications were encountered in 11/24 (48%) introducer PEG patients as compared to only 4/33 (12%) pull-type PEG patients (P < 0.05). Accidental removal of the introducer PEG tube occurred in 4/24 (17%) with need for surgical intervention in 1 vs. 0/33 (0%, P < 0.05). Wound infection occurred in 3/24 (12%) leading to septic shock and admission to intensive care unit (ICU) in 1 vs. 3/33 (9%, NS). Finally, 3/24 gastrointestinal perforations (12%) resulted from a difficult placement procedure vs. 1/33 (3%), leading to urgent surgical intervention and admission to ICU. Two introducer PEG patients died at ICU, resulting in an overall mortality rate of 8% vs. 0% (P = 0.091). CONCLUSION: The introducer Freka® Pexact PEG procedure for long-term tube feeding may lead to significantly higher complication and mortality rates in patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancies treated with chemo- and radiotherapy. It is suggested to use the conventional pull-type PEG tube placement in this group of patients, if possible.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) allows long-term tube feeding. Safety of pull-type and introducer PEG placement in oncology patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancies is unknown. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 299 patients undergoing PEG tube placement between January 2006 and December 2008 revealed 57 oncology patients. All patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancy were treated with chemo- and radiotherapy. In case of high-grade stenosis introducer Freka® Pexact PEG tube was placed (n = 24) and in all other patients (n = 33) conventional pull-type PEG tube. Short-term complications and mortality rates were compared. RESULTS:Patients' characteristics and clinical status were comparable in both groups. Short-term complications were encountered in 11/24 (48%) introducer PEGpatients as compared to only 4/33 (12%) pull-type PEGpatients (P < 0.05). Accidental removal of the introducer PEG tube occurred in 4/24 (17%) with need for surgical intervention in 1 vs. 0/33 (0%, P < 0.05). Wound infection occurred in 3/24 (12%) leading to septic shock and admission to intensive care unit (ICU) in 1 vs. 3/33 (9%, NS). Finally, 3/24 gastrointestinal perforations (12%) resulted from a difficult placement procedure vs. 1/33 (3%), leading to urgent surgical intervention and admission to ICU. Two introducer PEGpatients died at ICU, resulting in an overall mortality rate of 8% vs. 0% (P = 0.091). CONCLUSION: The introducer Freka® Pexact PEG procedure for long-term tube feeding may lead to significantly higher complication and mortality rates in patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancies treated with chemo- and radiotherapy. It is suggested to use the conventional pull-type PEG tube placement in this group of patients, if possible.
Authors: Richard S Kwon; Subhas Banerjee; David Desilets; David L Diehl; Francis A Farraye; Vivek Kaul; Petar Mamula; Marcos C Pedrosa; Sarah A Rodriguez; Shyam Varadarajulu; Louis-Michel Wong Kee Song; William M Tierney Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: A J Dormann; R Glosemeyer; U Leistner; H Deppe; R Roggel; B Wigginghaus; H Huchzermeyer Journal: Z Gastroenterol Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: D G Grant; P T Bradley; D D Pothier; D Bailey; S Caldera; D L Baldwin; M A Birchall Journal: Clin Otolaryngol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 2.597
Authors: Felipe A Retes; Fabio S Kawaguti; Marcelo S de Lima; Bruno da Costa Martins; Ricardo S Uemura; Gustavo A de Paulo; Caterina Mp Pennacchi; Carla Gusmon; Adriana Vs Ribeiro; Elisa R Baba; Sebastian N Geiger; Mauricio P Sorbello; Marco A Kulcsar; Ulysses Ribeiro; Fauze Maluf-Filho Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 4.623
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: Crispin O Musumba; Julia Hsu; Golo Ahlenstiel; Nicholas J Tutticci; Kavinderjit S Nanda; David van der Poorten; Eric Y Lee; Vu Kwan Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Francesca Vincenzi; Giuseppina De Caro; Federica Gaiani; Fabiola Fornaroli; Roberta Minelli; Gioacchino Leandro; Francesco Di Mario; Gian Luigi De' Angelis Journal: Acta Biomed Date: 2018-12-17
Authors: Niels Teich; Lars Selig; Susanne Liese; Franziska Schiefke; Alexander Hemprich; Joachim Mössner; Ingolf Schiefke Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2018-01-12