Literature DB >> 26380895

Fluoroscopy-guided jejunal extension tube placement through existing gastrostomy tubes: analysis of 391 procedures.

Andre Uflacker1, Yujie Qiao, Genevieve Easley, James Patrie, Drew Lambert, Eduard E de Lange.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of fluoroscopically placed jejunal extension tubes (J-arm) in patients with existing gastrostomy tubes.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 391 J-arm placements performed in 174 patients. Indications for jejunal nutrition were aspiration risk (35%), pancreatitis (17%), gastroparesis (13%), gastric outlet obstruction (12%), and other (23%). Technical success, complications, malfunctions, and patency were assessed. Percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG) tube location, J-arm course, and fluoroscopy time were correlated with success/failure. Failure was defined as inability to exit the stomach. Procedure-related complications were defined as adverse events related to tube placement occurring within seven days. Tube malfunctions and aspiration events were recorded and assessed.
RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 91.9% (95% CI, 86.7%-95.2%) of new tubes versus 94.2% (95% CI, 86.7%-95.2%) of replacements (P = 0.373). Periprocedural complications occurred in three patients (0.8%). Malfunctions occurred in 197 patients (50%). Median tube patency was 103 days (95% CI, 71-134 days). No association was found between successful J-arm placement and gastric PEG tube position (P = 0.677), indication for jejunal nutrition (P = 0.349), J-arm trajectory in the stomach and incidence of malfunction (P = 0.365), risk of tube migration and PEG tube position (P = 0.173), or J-arm length (P = 0.987). A fluoroscopy time of 21.3 min was identified as a threshold for failure. Malfunctions occurred more often in tubes replaced after 90 days than in tubes replaced before 90 days (P < 0.001). A total of 42 aspiration events occurred (OR 6.4, P < 0.001, compared with nonmalfunctioning tubes).
CONCLUSION: Fluoroscopy-guided J-arm placement is safe for patients requiring jejunal nutrition. Tubes indwelling for longer than 90 days have higher rates of malfunction and aspiration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26380895      PMCID: PMC4622397          DOI: 10.5152/dir.2015.14524

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol        ISSN: 1305-3825            Impact factor:   2.630


  20 in total

1.  Percutaneous gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy.

Authors:  Stuart M Lyon; Diane M Pascoe
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 1.513

2.  Jejunal tube extensions via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and delayed small-bowel perforations: a case series.

Authors:  Laura H Rosenberger; Timothy Newhook; David M Mauro; Sara A Hennessy; Robert G Sawyer
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-01-13       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Gastrostomy conversion to transgastric jejunostomy: technical problems, causes of failure, and proposed solutions in 63 patients.

Authors:  D S Lu; P R Mueller; M J Lee; S L Dawson; P F Hahn; E Brountzos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Enteral compared with parenteral nutrition: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  C L Braunschweig; P Levy; P M Sheean; X Wang
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 7.045

5.  Percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy and jejunal extension tube through percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a retrospective analysis of success, complications and outcome.

Authors:  Y Zopf; C Rabe; T Bruckmoser; J Maiss; E G Hahn; D Schwab
Journal:  Digestion       Date:  2009-03-12       Impact factor: 3.216

6.  Comparison of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy and PEG with jejunal extension.

Authors:  Andy C Fan; Todd H Baron; Ashwin Rumalla; Gavin C Harewood
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Relationship between fluoroscopic time, dose-area product, body weight, and maximum radiation skin dose in cardiac interventional procedures.

Authors:  Koichi Chida; Haruo Saito; Hiroki Otani; Masahiro Kohzuki; Shoki Takahashi; Shogo Yamada; Kunio Shirato; Masayuki Zuguchi
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Lipid uptake by silicone enteral access feeding devices.

Authors:  J Trudel; M W Gauderer; M J Drews; M LaBerge
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.545

Review 9.  Gastroparesis: a review of current and emerging treatment options.

Authors:  Chijioke Enweluzo; Fahad Aziz
Journal:  Clin Exp Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-09-05

Review 10.  Gastric versus post-pyloric feeding: a systematic review.

Authors:  Paul E Marik; Gary P Zaloga
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2003-05-06       Impact factor: 9.097

View more
  2 in total

1.  Effect of a Novel, Energy-Dense, Low-Volume Nutritional Food in the Treatment of Superior Mesenteric Artery Syndrome.

Authors:  Tetsuro Akashi; Risa Hashimoto; Akihiro Funakoshi
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-05-25

2.  How often should percutaneous gastrostomy feeding tubes be replaced? A single-institute retrospective study.

Authors:  Byung Hyo Cha; Min Jung Park; Joo Yeong Baeg; Sunpyo Lee; Eui Yong Jeon; Wafaa Salem Obaid Alsalami; Osama Mohamed Ibrahim Idris; Young Joon Ahn
Journal:  BMJ Open Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-04
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.