Literature DB >> 32884630

Gastropexy can be as safe as conventional percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), and biomarkers do not predict short-term or long-term outcomes: a 7-year follow-up audit.

Ross J Porter1,2, Alastair W McKinlay2, Emma L Metcalfe2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Gastrostomy facilitates artificial enteral feeding but controversy exists around associated morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to report short and long-term outcomes, and identify parameters associated with overall survival.
METHODS: A 7-year follow-up audit was undertaken at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, UK. All patients undergoing endoscopic gastrostomy insertion October 2011-September 2018 were included. Last follow-up was February 2019. Clinical data were prospectively collected. Blood results were retrospectively obtained from electronic records. Statistical analysis was with IBM SPSS V.25.
RESULTS: 691 procedures were performed over the 7-year period (520 traditional pull-through percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and 171 gastropexy procedures to facilitate gastrostomy). Frequency of complications (gastrointestinal bleeding, perforation and peritonitis) was low (each n=1). Overall 7-day and 30-day mortality was 2.2% and 8.4%, respectively. One-year mortality reached 47.6%. There was no difference in survival between PEG and gastropexy procedures (p=0.410). Multivariate analysis reported increased age (p<0.001), increased alkaline phosphatase (p<0.001) and clinical indication (p=0.002) as independently associated with an increased hazard of death. Only age was moderately predictive of mortality (area under the curve 0.74, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.78, p<0.001) in the PEG group. Clinical indication was the only parameter independently associated with mortality in the gastropexy cohort (p=0.003).
CONCLUSION: Endoscopic gastrostomy placement can be safe with a low mortality and low risk of serious complications. Blood markers were not associated with short-term or long-term outcomes. Gastropexy to facilitate gastrostomy is a safe alternative to traditional pull-through PEG procedures. Future work should consider quality of life outcomes to assess the benefit of gastrostomy from a patient perspective. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PEG; gastrostomy; nutrition

Year:  2019        PMID: 32884630      PMCID: PMC7447287          DOI: 10.1136/flgastro-2019-101306

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol        ISSN: 2041-4137


  11 in total

1.  Clinical selection criteria can predict futile intervention in patients referred for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion.

Authors:  D Q Holt; J F McDonald; M L Murray; C Hair; D A Devonshire; B J Strauss; G T Moore
Journal:  Intern Med J       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.048

2.  Predictive factors of mortality after PEG insertion: guidance for clinical practice.

Authors:  Yurdagül Zopf; Jürgen Maiss; Peter Konturek; Christina Rabe; Eckhart G Hahn; Dieter Schwab
Journal:  JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.016

3.  A large prospective audit of morbidity and mortality associated with feeding gastrostomies in the community.

Authors:  Emily Clarke; Narrie Pitts; Andrew Latchford; Stephen Lewis
Journal:  Clin Nutr       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 7.324

4.  Incidence of abdominal wall metastases following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement in patients with head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Eleanor Fung; David S Strosberg; Edward L Jones; Rebecca Dettorre; Andrew Suzo; Michael P Meara; Vimal K Narula; Jeffrey W Hazey
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-12-30       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Novel score predicting gastrostomy tube placement in intracerebral hemorrhage.

Authors:  Roland Faigle; Elisabeth B Marsh; Rafael H Llinas; Victor C Urrutia; Rebecca F Gottesman
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 7.914

6.  Risk factors and complications following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a case series of 1041 patients.

Authors:  Hans Juergen Richter-Schrag; Sabine Richter; Olaf Ruthmann; Manfred Olschewski; Ulrich Theodor Hopt; Andreas Fischer
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 3.522

7.  Survival After Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Older Adults With Neurologic Disorders.

Authors:  Ozgur Kara; Muhammet Cemal Kizilarslanoglu; Busra Canbaz; Gunes Arik; Hacer Dogan Varan; Mehmet Emin Kuyumcu; Mustafa Kemal Kilic; Fatih Sumer; Yusuf Yesil; Burcu Balam Yavuz; Mustafa Cankurtaran; Omer Ozturk; Taylan Kav; Meltem Halil
Journal:  Nutr Clin Pract       Date:  2016-07-09       Impact factor: 3.080

8.  Does feeding tube insertion and its timing improve survival?

Authors:  Joan M Teno; Pedro L Gozalo; Susan L Mitchell; Sylvia Kuo; Ramona L Rhodes; Julie P W Bynum; Vincent Mor
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2012-09-24       Impact factor: 5.562

9.  Hospital and long-term outcome after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  Brian M Smith; Paul Perring; Milo Engoren; Joseph J Sferra
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-04-28       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Risk factors for complications and mortality of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion.

Authors:  Gyu Young Pih; Hee Kyong Na; Ji Yong Ahn; Kee Wook Jung; Do Hoon Kim; Jeong Hoon Lee; Kee Don Choi; Ho June Song; Gin Hyug Lee; Hwoon-Yong Jung
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 3.067

View more
  1 in total

1.  Endoscopically placed venting gastrostomy can be a safe and effective palliative intervention in benign and malignant gastrointestinal obstruction.

Authors:  Ross J Porter; Alastair W McKinlay; Emma L Metcalfe
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-09-20
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.