Ryan Judd1, Wesley Klejch1, Alexander Lionberg1, Mikin V Patel2, Brian Funaki1, Osman Ahmed1. 1. Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, USA. 2. Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Arizona, Tuscon, Arizona, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to assess the association between complication rate and time to feeding in a cohort of patients undergoing radiologically guided placement of gastrostomy tubes. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of all patients receiving pull-type and push-type gastrostomy tubes placed by interventional radiologists between January 1st, 2017 and December 31st, 2018 at a single institution. Primary outcomes included procedural and tube-related complications per medical chart review with a follow-up interval of 30 days. Exclusion criteria were enteral nutrition delayed more than 48 hours, no feeding information, and tubes placed for venting (n=20). Overall, 303 gastrostomy tubes (pull-type, n=184; push-type, n=119) were included. The most common indications for placement included head and neck carcinoma for push-type tubes (n=76, 63.9%) and cerebral vascular accident for pull-type tubes (n=78, 42.4%). RESULTS: In a multiple regression analysis, there was no statistically significant association between complications and time to feeding (p = 0.096), age (p = 0.758), gender (p = 0.127), indication for tube placement (p = 0.206), or type of tube placed (p = 0.437). Average time to initiation of enteral nutrition was 12.3 hours for the pull-type and 21.7 hours for the push-type cohort (p < 0.001). Additional multiple regression analyses of pull-type tubes and push-type tubes separately also did not find any significant association between complications and the above factors (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant correlation between time to feed and complications, suggesting that there is no clinical difference between early and late feeding following gastrostomy tube placement.
PURPOSE: We aimed to assess the association between complication rate and time to feeding in a cohort of patients undergoing radiologically guided placement of gastrostomy tubes. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of all patients receiving pull-type and push-type gastrostomy tubes placed by interventional radiologists between January 1st, 2017 and December 31st, 2018 at a single institution. Primary outcomes included procedural and tube-related complications per medical chart review with a follow-up interval of 30 days. Exclusion criteria were enteral nutrition delayed more than 48 hours, no feeding information, and tubes placed for venting (n=20). Overall, 303 gastrostomy tubes (pull-type, n=184; push-type, n=119) were included. The most common indications for placement included head and neck carcinoma for push-type tubes (n=76, 63.9%) and cerebral vascular accident for pull-type tubes (n=78, 42.4%). RESULTS: In a multiple regression analysis, there was no statistically significant association between complications and time to feeding (p = 0.096), age (p = 0.758), gender (p = 0.127), indication for tube placement (p = 0.206), or type of tube placed (p = 0.437). Average time to initiation of enteral nutrition was 12.3 hours for the pull-type and 21.7 hours for the push-type cohort (p < 0.001). Additional multiple regression analyses of pull-type tubes and push-type tubes separately also did not find any significant association between complications and the above factors (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant correlation between time to feed and complications, suggesting that there is no clinical difference between early and late feeding following gastrostomy tube placement.
Authors: David J Tischfield; Gregory J Nadolski; Stephen J Hunt; Maxim Itkin; Richard D Shlansky-Goldberg; Terence P Gade Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-01
Authors: Srinivasan Dubagunta; Christopher D Still; Arvind Kumar; Zahoor Makhdoom; Nicholas A Inverso; Ronald J Bross; Michael J Komar; Lisa Mulhisen; Joanne Z Rogers; Susan Whitmire; Bethann Whilden Journal: Nutr Clin Pract Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 3.080
Authors: Sharjeel H Sabir; Ryan Armstrong; Linda S Elting; Michael J Wallace; Sanjay Gupta; Alda L Tam Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.464