Literature DB >> 30608631

Radiologic versus Endoscopic Placement of Gastrostomy Tube: Comparison of Indications and Outcomes at a Tertiary Referral Center.

Steven Clayton1, Christopher DeClue1, Trevor Lewis1, Andrea Rodriguez1, Kimberly Kolkhorst1, Rashid Syed1, Ambuj Kumar1, Clifford Davis1, Patrick Brady1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement is performed in patients requiring long-term enteral nutrition. Although both endoscopic and fluoroscopic techniques may be used, there are inherent risks and potential complications associated with both procedures that are not generally known to referring physicians. The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast indications for placement and procedurally related complications between fluoroscopic and endoscopic gastrostomy tubes techniques at a tertiary care facility.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed. All consecutive patients with either percutaneous endoscopic (PEG) or percutaneous radiologic (PRG) gastrostomy tube placement between October 2011 and January 2013 were eligible for inclusion. Basic demographic information, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, procedure indication, laboratory data, and use of anticoagulation were recorded. Both direct and indirect procedural complications were documented if they occurred 30 days after gastrostomy tube placement, and were classified and scored based on severity and need for further intervention.
RESULTS: A total of 297 patients met the inclusion criteria, 150 of whom had gastrostomy tubes placed fluoroscopically and 147 of whom had them placed endoscopically. There was no statistically significant difference in direct complications within the first 30 days (PEG 6.8% vs PRG 8%); however, the type of complication observed varied between the two groups. Although superficial wound infections and buried bumpers were more common in the PEG group, bleeding was more common in the PRG group.
CONCLUSIONS: Placement of gastrostomy tubes either endoscopically or fluoroscopically is relatively safe with similar indications. Although the complication rate between the two groups was not significant, the types of procedural complications observed did vary.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30608631     DOI: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000916

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  South Med J        ISSN: 0038-4348            Impact factor:   0.954


  4 in total

Review 1.  MDCT evaluation of complications of percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement.

Authors:  Rakhee S Gawande; Christopher R Bailey; Christopher Jones; Elliot K Fishman
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2019-08-23

Review 2.  Gastrostomy tubes: Fundamentals, periprocedural considerations, and best practices.

Authors:  Anand Rajan; Peerapol Wangrattanapranee; Jonathan Kessler; Trilokesh Dey Kidambi; James H Tabibian
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2022-04-27

3.  The effects of total enteral nutrition via nasal feeding and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy in patients with dysphagia following a cerebral infarction.

Authors:  Tianwen Yuan; Guoqing Zeng; Qi Yang; Yang He; Peng Kong; Saibo Wang; Xing Zhou; Jun Cao
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 4.060

4.  Outcomes following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus fluoroscopic procedures in the Medicare population.

Authors:  Samantha Maasarani; Syed I Khalid; Chantal Creighton; Athena J Manatis-Lornell; Aaron L Wiegmann; Samantha L Terranella; Nicholas J Skertich; Laura DeCesare; Edie Y Chan
Journal:  Surg Open Sci       Date:  2020-07-17
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.