Literature DB >> 23864780

Single endoscopist-performed percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement.

Askin Erdogan1.   

Abstract

AIM: To investigate whether single endoscopist-performed percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is safe and to compare the complications of PEG with those reported in the literature.
METHODS: Patients who underwent PEG placement between June 2001 and August 2011 at the Baskent University Alanya Teaching and Research Center were evaluated retrospectively. Patients whose PEG was placed for the first time by a single endoscopist were enrolled in the study. PEG was performed using the pull method. All of the patients were evaluated for their indications for PEG, major and minor complications resulting from PEG, nutritional status, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and the use of antibiotic treatment or antibiotic prophylaxis prior to PEG. Comorbidities, rates, time and reasons for mortality were also evaluated. The reasons for PEG removal and PEG duration were also investigated.
RESULTS: Sixty-two patients underwent the PEG procedure for the first time during this study. Eight patients who underwent PEG placement by 2 endoscopists were not enrolled in the study. A total of 54 patients were investigated. The patients' mean age was 69.9 years. The most common indication for PEG was cerebral infarct, which occurred in approximately two-thirds of the patients. The mean albumin level was 3.04 ± 0.7 g/dL, and 76.2% of the patients' albumin levels were below the normal values. The mean CRP level was high in 90.6% of patients prior to the procedure. Approximately two-thirds of the patients received antibiotics for either prophylaxis or treatment for infections prior to the PEG procedure. Mortality was not related to the procedure in any of the patients. Buried bumper syndrome was the only major complication, and it occurred in the third year. In such case, the PEG was removed and a new PEG tube was placed via surgery. Eight patients (15.1%) experienced minor complications, 6 (11.1%) of which were wound infections. All wound infections except one recovered with antibiotic treatment. Two patients had bleeding from the PEG site, one was resolved with primary suturing and the other with fresh frozen plasma transfusion.
CONCLUSION: The incidence of major and minor complications is in keeping with literature. This finding may be noteworthy, especially in developing countries.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endoscopy; Enteral feeding; Enteral nutrition; Gastric feeding tube; Gastrointestinal; Gastrostomy

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23864780      PMCID: PMC3710419          DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i26.4172

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 1007-9327            Impact factor:   5.742


  25 in total

Review 1.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a review of indications, complications and outcome.

Authors:  F B Nicholson; M G Korman; M A Richardson
Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.029

2.  Antibiotic prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy--a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial.

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

3.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a nonoperative technique for feeding gastrostomy.

Authors:  J L Ponsky; M W Gauderer
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1981-02       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  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

5.  Serum albumin is predictive of 30-day survival after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  F Friedenberg; G Jensen; N Gujral; L E Braitman; G M Levine
Journal:  JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr       Date:  1997 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.016

6.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a long-term follow-up.

Authors:  C Finocchiaro; R Galletti; G Rovera; A Ferrari; L Todros; A Vuolo; F Balzola
Journal:  Nutrition       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 4.008

7.  The buried bumper syndrome: migration of internal bumper of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube into the abdominal wall.

Authors:  Rasim Gençosmanoğlu; Demet Koç; Nurdan Tözün
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 7.527

8.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in cancer patients: predictors of 30-day complications, 30-day mortality, and overall mortality.

Authors:  David M Richards; Rajasekhar Tanikella; Gaurav Arora; Sushovan Guha; Alexander A Dekovich
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 3.199

9.  Risk factors for mortality in patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  A Lang; E Bardan; Y Chowers; E Sakhnini; H H Fidder; S Bar-Meir; B Avidan
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 10.093

10.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy by head and neck surgeons.

Authors:  K G Urban; D J Terris
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 5.591

View more
  3 in total

1.  Retrograde gastrojejunostomy tube migration.

Authors:  Adeleke Adesina; Guhan Rammohan; Rebecca Jeanmonod
Journal:  Case Rep Emerg Med       Date:  2014-12-29

2.  Therapeutic efficacy of nutritional support by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in critically ill patients: A self-control clinical trial.

Authors:  Fei Zhou; Ya-Ling Gao; Zheng-Jin Liu; Yi-Qun Hu
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2017 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.088

3.  Outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in hospitalized patients at a tertiary care center in Turkey.

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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.