Literature DB >> 7555937

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): comparison of push and pull methods and evaluation of antibiotic prophylaxis.

W L Akkersdijk1, J D van Bergeijk, T van Egmond, C J Mulder, G P van Berge Henegouwen, C van der Werken, K J van Erpecum.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Infection of the gastrostomy opening after placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) catheter has been reported to occur quite often, especially when the pull method is used. We therefore compared complications occurring with the pull and push methods, and evaluated the role of antibiotic prophylaxis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective study, 100 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to group A (pull plus antibiotic prophylaxis: amoxycillin-clavulanic acid 3 x 1.2 g i.v. over 24 hours; 37 patients), group B (pull without antibiotic prophylaxis; 34 patients) and group C (push without antibiotic prophylaxis; 29 patients). The indications for PEG placement were dysphagia due to oropharyngeal tumors (56%), neurological disease (32%), or other (12%). Patients were evaluated twice weekly for one month after the PEG placement.
RESULTS: PEG catheters were successfully placed in 96% of the patients. The total procedure-related complication rate was significantly lower in group A than in groups B and C (28%, 58%, and 70%, respectively; p < 0.01). Major complications occurred in one patient in group A (seeding metastasis of a hypopharyngeal carcinoma in the gastrostomy tract), and in four patients in group B (three cases of peritonitis and one aspiration, resulting in two deaths), but in none of the group C patients. Group A patients experienced fewer peristomal infections than the other two groups (14%, 30%, and 41%, respectively: p = 0.05). The risk of peristomal pain was similar (11%, 15%, and 11%, respectively; p = n.s.). In three patients in group C, the PEG catheter had to be replaced by the pull method, due to repeated dislocation of the balloon catheter.
CONCLUSIONS: The complication rate with PEG placement is high with both the push and pull methods. The complication rate with the pull method is significantly reduced when antibiotic prophylaxis is used.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7555937     DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1005699

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  31 in total

1.  Prospective, randomised, double blind trial of prophylaxis with single dose of co-amoxiclav before percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  G Preclik; S Grüne; H G Leser; J Lebherz; W Heldwein; K Machka; A Holstege; W V Kern
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-10-02

2.  Antibiotic prophylaxis after percutaneous endoscopic gastrotomy insertion. All encompassing study is needed.

Authors:  S Sanders; M J Carter
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-03-25

3.  [The value of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in ENT tumor patients].

Authors:  K Mantsopoulos; M Koch; J Zenk; H Iro
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.284

4.  Retrograde jejunoduodenal intussusception caused by a migrated percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube.

Authors:  Krish Ragunath; Ashley Roberts; Siba Senapati; Geoff Clark
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  Covering the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube prevents peristomal infection.

Authors:  Yutaka Suzuki; Mitsuyoshi Urashima; Yoshio Ishibashi; Masahiro Abo; Hiroshi Mashiko; Yukimoto Eda; Toshiro Kusakabe; Naruo Kawasaki; Katsuhiko Yanaga
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Complication rate lower after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy than after surgical gastrostomy: a prospective, randomized trial.

Authors:  M Ljungdahl; M Sundbom
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-07-24       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Retrograde jejunoduodenogastric intussusception due to a replacement percutaneous gastrostomy tube presenting as upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Eric Ibegbu; Manish Relan; Kenneth-J Vega
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-10-21       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Comparison of fluoroscopy-guided Pull-type percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (Pull-type-PRG) with conventional percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (Push-type-PRG): clinical results in 253 patients.

Authors:  Yang Yang; J Schneider; C Düber; M B Pitton
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-07-09       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Enteral long-term nutrition via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in 210 patients: a four-year prospective study.

Authors:  C Löser; S Wolters; U R Fölsch
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 10.  Complications of and controversies associated with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: report of a case and literature review.

Authors:  Jonathan Z Potack; Sita Chokhavatia
Journal:  Medscape J Med       Date:  2008-06-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.