Literature DB >> 7828971

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in a general hospital: prospective evaluation of indications, outcome, and randomised comparison of two tube designs.

M Z Panos1, H Reilly, A Moran, T Reilly, P J Wallis, R Wears, I M Chesner.   

Abstract

The indications for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and patient outcome, were examined prospectively in the setting of a general hospital. In the course of 26 months, 76 patients underwent PEG (median age 62 years (range 18-99)) and were followed up for 6887 patient days. The median (range) duration of PEG feeding was 93 (3-785) days. The procedure was carried out for neurological indications in 76% of cases (stroke 51%) and 53% of patients were severely malnourished (body mass index < 17 kg/m2) at the time of referral. In 12 (16%) patients swallowing recovered and the PEG was removed after a median (range) of 55 days (20-150). Three (4%) deaths were related to PEG (one oesophageal perforation, one haemorrhage, and one aspiration pneumonia). One patient developed peritonism and ileus, which resolved with conservative treatment. Minor complications included local sepsis 3%, tube blockage 12%, and tube connector leak 5%. During seven days of observation, demands on nursing time for routine care of the PEG were the same as for nasogastric tube feeding, median (range) 21 (4-42) v 16 (4-40) min/day respectively, but in about half the latter cases the tube had to be replaced at least once. Over 15 months, 29 patients were randomised to receive a 1.9 mm inner, 2.9 mm (9F) outer diameter Fresenius and 27 a 3.0 mm inner, 4.0 mm (12F) outer diameter Bower polyurethane tube and were followed for 2920 and 2388 patient days respectively. There was no difference in the insertion time (median (range) 20 (10-45) v 24 (10-45) min respectively) or number of patients with complications (three v eight patients NS), although there were more minor mechanical problems (three v 12, p < 0.01) with the 12F tube. The internal anchoring device of the 12F tube allowed its non-endoscopic removal, a method applicable too 16% of cases. No tubes were removed because of blockage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7828971      PMCID: PMC1375610          DOI: 10.1136/gut.35.11.1551

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


  11 in total

1.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in elderly patients.

Authors:  M Z Panos; A Moran; D E Stableforth; I Chesner
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 2.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies: a prospective evaluation and review of the literature.

Authors:  D F Kirby; R M Craig; T K Tsang; B H Plotnick
Journal:  JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr       Date:  1986 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.016

3.  Audit of outcome of long-term enteral nutrition by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  M A Hull; J Rawlings; F E Murray; J Field; A S McIntyre; Y R Mahida; C J Hawkey; S P Allison
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-04-03       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Percutaneous gastrostomy. A new simplified and cost-effective technique.

Authors:  T R Russell; M Brotman; F Norris
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1984-07       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  Assessment of the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube as part of an integrated approach to enteral feeding.

Authors:  C Wicks; A Gimson; P Vlavianos; M Lombard; M Panos; P Macmathuna; M Tudor; K Andrews; D Westaby
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  Randomised comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding in patients with persisting neurological dysphagia.

Authors:  R H Park; M C Allison; J Lang; E Spence; A J Morris; B J Danesh; R I Russell; P R Mills
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-05-30

7.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Indications, success, complications, and mortality in 314 consecutive patients.

Authors:  D E Larson; D D Burton; K W Schroeder; E P DiMagno
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  Estimation of the mid-upper arm circumference measurement error.

Authors:  C W Bishop; S J Pitchey
Journal:  J Am Diet Assoc       Date:  1987-04

9.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in elderly patients.

Authors:  P Finucane; S M Aslan; D Duncan
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 2.401

10.  Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique.

Authors:  M W Gauderer; J L Ponsky; R J Izant
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  1980-12       Impact factor: 2.545

View more
  10 in total

1.  [Techniques and complications in post-interventional and long-term enteral nutrition].

Authors:  J Teichmann; J F Riemann
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 0.743

2.  Do patients with advanced cognitive impairment admitted to hospitals with higher rates of feeding tube insertion have improved survival?

Authors:  Shubing Cai; Pedro L Gozalo; Susan L Mitchell; Sylvia Kuo; Julie P W Bynum; Vincent Mor; Joan M Teno
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2012-08-04       Impact factor: 3.612

3.  Evidence-based guidelines for the management of large hemispheric infarction : a statement for health care professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the German Society for Neuro-intensive Care and Emergency Medicine.

Authors:  Michel T Torbey; Julian Bösel; Denise H Rhoney; Fred Rincon; Dimitre Staykov; Arun P Amar; Panayiotis N Varelas; Eric Jüttler; DaiWai Olson; Hagen B Huttner; Klaus Zweckberger; Kevin N Sheth; Christian Dohmen; Ansgar M Brambrink; Stephan A Mayer; Osama O Zaidat; Werner Hacke; Stefan Schwab
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.210

4.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube replacement: A simple procedure?

Authors:  Varut Lohsiriwat
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-01-16

5.  Indications, complications and long-term follow-up of patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Fatih Ermis; Melih Ozel; Kemal Oncu; Yusuf Yazgan; Levent Demirturk; Ahmet Kemal Gurbuz; Taner Akyol; Hasan Nazik
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 1.704

6.  Day-case percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a viable proposition?

Authors:  A Mandal; A Steel; A R Davidson; C Ashby
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 7.  Colocutaneous fistula: a rare and silent complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  I Siddique; M Krishnamurthy; S Choubey; P Gudavalli; T Bharathan; B R Pachter
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  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

9.  Endoscopic repair of gastrostomy after inadvertent removal of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube.

Authors:  J M Blocksom; C Sugawa; S Tokioka; E Field
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-02-02       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Mediastinitis complicating a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a case report.

Authors:  Kalliopi Papakonstantinou; Athanasios Karagiannis; Maria Tsirantonaki; Anastasios Konstantinidis; Spiros Spirou; Ion Skottis; Andreas Karabinis
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-06-06       Impact factor: 3.067

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.