BACKGROUND: Despite the use of prophylactic antibiotics, peristomal infection is the most common complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). A new glycerin hydrogel (GHG) wound dressing has been proposed to possess more effective antimicrobial properties but has not been tested in a larger trial. The aim of the study was therefore to assess the superiority of GHG regarding the incidence of peristomal wound infections during a 30-day postprocedure follow-up. METHODS:Sixty-eight patients with cancer undergoing PEG were recruited from 1 university and 2 general hospitals between January 2007 and December 2008. Patients were randomized to group 1 (34 patients), which received GHG, or group 2 (34 patients), which received a traditional wound dressing. Dressing changes were done at day 1 and weeks 1, 2, and 4 (group 1) vs daily changes during week 1 and at weeks 2 and 4 (group 2). The PEG site was assessed by using 2 different infection scores. RESULTS: At the end of the first and second weeks, a statistically significant reduction of the mean infection scores was seen in patients with GHG wound dressings (first week: 1.64 ± 1.6 vs 3.12 ± 2.69, P < .008; second week: 1.37 ± 1.11 vs 2.53 ± 2.37, P < .02). After 7 days, wound reactions occurred in 14.7% in the GHG group vs 47.05% in the traditional group (p <0.005). The GHG wound dressing required 5 times less frequent dressing changes. CONCLUSION: The GHG wound dressing significantly reduces peristomal wound infections and is a convenient, cost-effective alternative for wound management following PEG.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite the use of prophylactic antibiotics, peristomal infection is the most common complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). A new glycerin hydrogel (GHG) wound dressing has been proposed to possess more effective antimicrobial properties but has not been tested in a larger trial. The aim of the study was therefore to assess the superiority of GHG regarding the incidence of peristomal wound infections during a 30-day postprocedure follow-up. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with cancer undergoing PEG were recruited from 1 university and 2 general hospitals between January 2007 and December 2008. Patients were randomized to group 1 (34 patients), which received GHG, or group 2 (34 patients), which received a traditional wound dressing. Dressing changes were done at day 1 and weeks 1, 2, and 4 (group 1) vs daily changes during week 1 and at weeks 2 and 4 (group 2). The PEG site was assessed by using 2 different infection scores. RESULTS: At the end of the first and second weeks, a statistically significant reduction of the mean infection scores was seen in patients with GHG wound dressings (first week: 1.64 ± 1.6 vs 3.12 ± 2.69, P < .008; second week: 1.37 ± 1.11 vs 2.53 ± 2.37, P < .02). After 7 days, wound reactions occurred in 14.7% in the GHG group vs 47.05% in the traditional group (p <0.005). The GHG wound dressing required 5 times less frequent dressing changes. CONCLUSION: The GHG wound dressing significantly reduces peristomal wound infections and is a convenient, cost-effective alternative for wound management following PEG.