Literature DB >> 32931781

Safety of endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement compared with radiologic or surgical gastrostomy: nationwide inpatient assessment.

Divyanshoo R Kohli1, Kevin F Kennedy2, Madhav Desai1, Prateek Sharma1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A gastrostomy tube is often required for inpatients requiring long-term nutritional access. We compared the safety and outcomes of 3 techniques for performing a gastrostomy: percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), fluoroscopy-guided gastrostomy by an interventional radiologist (IR-gastrostomy), and open gastrostomy performed by a surgeon (surgical gastrostomy).
METHODS: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, we identified hospitalized patients who underwent a gastrostomy from 2016 to 2017. They were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Procedure Coding System. The selected patients were divided into 3 cohorts: PEG (0DH64UZ), IR-gastrostomy (0DH63UZ), and open surgical gastrostomy (0DH60UZ). Adjusted odds ratios for adverse events associated with each technique were calculated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 184,068 patients meeting the selection criteria, the route of gastrostomy tube placement was as follows: PEG, 16,384 (53.7 ± 29.0 years); IR-gastrostomy, 154,007 (67.2 ± 17.5 years); and surgical gastrostomy, 13,677 (57.9 ± 24.3 years). Compared with PEG, the odds for colon perforation using IR-gastrostomy and surgical gastrostomy, respectively, were 1.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-2.86; P = .002) and 6.65 (95% CI, 4.38-10.12; P < .001), for infection of the gastrostomy 1.28 (95% CI, 1.07-1.53; P = .006) and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.29-2.01; P < .001), for hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion 1.84 (95% CI, 1.26-2.68; P = .002) and 1.09 (95% CI, .64-1.86; P = .746), for nonelective 30-day readmission 1.07 (95% CI, 1.03-1.12; P = .0023) and 1.13 (95% CI, 1.06-1.2; P = .0002), and for inpatient mortality 1.09 (95% CI, 1.02-1.17; P = .0114) and 1.55 (95% CI, 1.42-1.69; P < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Placement of a gastrostomy tube (PEG) endoscopically is associated with a significantly lower risk of inpatient adverse events, mortality, and readmission rates compared with IR-gastrostomy and open surgical gastrostomy. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Year:  2020        PMID: 32931781     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.09.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  4 in total

Review 1.  Gastroenterologist's Guide to Gastrostomies.

Authors:  Thaer Abdelfattah; Matthew Kaspar
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 3.487

2.  Severe Gastrointestinal Bleeding Following Gastrostomy Tube Replacement: A Case of an Unusual Presentation of Enterocutaneous Fistula.

Authors:  Teresa Da Cunha; Jaimy Villavicencio; Steven A Goldenberg
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-05-02

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and jejunostomy: Indications and techniques.

Authors:  Alessandro Fugazza; Antonio Capogreco; Annalisa Cappello; Rosangela Nicoletti; Leonardo Da Rio; Piera Alessia Galtieri; Roberta Maselli; Silvia Carrara; Gaia Pellegatta; Marco Spadaccini; Edoardo Vespa; Matteo Colombo; Kareem Khalaf; Alessandro Repici; Andrea Anderloni
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2022-05-16
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.