Andrew Varone1, Andrew Stephen2, Tareq Kheirbek2, Charles Adams2, William Cioffi2. 1. Department of Surgery, Rhode Island Hospital and the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 593 Eddy St, Providence, RI, 02903, USA. Andrew_varone@brown.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, Rhode Island Hospital and the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 593 Eddy St, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are placed by gastroenterologists (GI) and surgeons throughout the country. At Rhode Island Hospital, before July of 2017, all PEGs were placed by GI. In July of 2017, in response to a growing need for PEGs, acute care surgeons (ACS) also began performing PEGs at the bedside in ICUs. The purpose of this study was to review and compare outcomes of PEG tubes placed by ACS and GI. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients who received a PEG placed by ACS or GI at the bedside in any ICU from December 2016 to September 2019. Charts were reviewed for the following outcomes: Success rates of placing PEG, duration of procedure, major complications, and death. Secondary outcomes included discharge disposition, and rates of comfort measures only after PEG. RESULTS: In 2017, 75% of PEGs were placed by GI and 25% surgery. In 2018, 47% were placed by GI and 53% by surgery. In 2019, 33% were placed by GI and 67% by surgery. There was no significant difference in success rates between surgery (146/156 93.6%) and GI (173/185 93.5%) (p 0.97). On average, GI performed the procedure faster than surgery [Median 10 (7-16) min vs 16 (13-21) mins, respectively, p < 0.001]. There were no significant differences between groups in any of the PEG outcomes or complications investigated. CONCLUSION: Bedside PEG tube placement appears to be a safe procedure in the ICU population. GI and Surgery had nearly identical success rates in placing PEGs. GI performed the procedure faster than surgery. There were no significant differences in the reviewed patient outcomes or complications between PEGs placed by ACS or GI. Of note, when a complication occurred, ACS PEG patients typically were managed in the OR while GI tended to re-PEG patients highlighting a potential difference in management that should be further investigated.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are placed by gastroenterologists (GI) and surgeons throughout the country. At Rhode Island Hospital, before July of 2017, all PEGs were placed by GI. In July of 2017, in response to a growing need for PEGs, acute care surgeons (ACS) also began performing PEGs at the bedside in ICUs. The purpose of this study was to review and compare outcomes of PEG tubes placed by ACS and GI. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients who received a PEG placed by ACS or GI at the bedside in any ICU from December 2016 to September 2019. Charts were reviewed for the following outcomes: Success rates of placing PEG, duration of procedure, major complications, and death. Secondary outcomes included discharge disposition, and rates of comfort measures only after PEG. RESULTS: In 2017, 75% of PEGs were placed by GI and 25% surgery. In 2018, 47% were placed by GI and 53% by surgery. In 2019, 33% were placed by GI and 67% by surgery. There was no significant difference in success rates between surgery (146/156 93.6%) and GI (173/185 93.5%) (p 0.97). On average, GI performed the procedure faster than surgery [Median 10 (7-16) min vs 16 (13-21) mins, respectively, p < 0.001]. There were no significant differences between groups in any of the PEG outcomes or complications investigated. CONCLUSION: Bedside PEG tube placement appears to be a safe procedure in the ICU population. GI and Surgery had nearly identical success rates in placing PEGs. GI performed the procedure faster than surgery. There were no significant differences in the reviewed patient outcomes or complications between PEGs placed by ACS or GI. Of note, when a complication occurred, ACS PEG patients typically were managed in the OR while GI tended to re-PEG patients highlighting a potential difference in management that should be further investigated.
Authors: Lukejohn W Day; Michelle Nazareth; Justin L Sewell; J Lucas Williams; David A Lieberman Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: S Scott Davis; Farah A Husain; Edward Lin; Kalyana C Nandipati; Sebastian Perez; John F Sweeney Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Roberto Hernández-Irizarry; Benjamin Zendejas; Shahzad M Ali; Christine M Lohse; David R Farley Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Ata A Rahnemai-Azar; Amir A Rahnemaiazar; Rozhin Naghshizadian; Amparo Kurtz; Daniel T Farkas Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-06-28 Impact factor: 5.742