Cargando…

Comparing open gastrostomy tube to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube in heart transplant patients

INTRODUCTION: Impaired wound healing due to immunosuppression has led some surgeons to preferentially use open gastrostomy tube (OGT) over percutaneous gastrostomy tube (PEG) in heart transplant patients when long-term enteral access is deemed necessary. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ambur, Vishnu, Taghavi, Sharven, Jayarajan, Senthil, Gaughan, John, Toyoda, Yoshiya, Dauer, Elizabeth, Sjoholm, Lars Ola, Pathak, Abhijit, Santora, Thomas, Goldberg, Amy J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4840285/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27141303
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2016.03.023
_version_ 1782428254588633088
author Ambur, Vishnu
Taghavi, Sharven
Jayarajan, Senthil
Gaughan, John
Toyoda, Yoshiya
Dauer, Elizabeth
Sjoholm, Lars Ola
Pathak, Abhijit
Santora, Thomas
Goldberg, Amy J.
author_facet Ambur, Vishnu
Taghavi, Sharven
Jayarajan, Senthil
Gaughan, John
Toyoda, Yoshiya
Dauer, Elizabeth
Sjoholm, Lars Ola
Pathak, Abhijit
Santora, Thomas
Goldberg, Amy J.
author_sort Ambur, Vishnu
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Impaired wound healing due to immunosuppression has led some surgeons to preferentially use open gastrostomy tube (OGT) over percutaneous gastrostomy tube (PEG) in heart transplant patients when long-term enteral access is deemed necessary. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2005–2010) was queried for all heart transplant patients. Those receiving OGT were compared to those treated with PEG tube. RESULTS: There were 498 patients requiring long-term enteral access treated with a gastrostomy tube, with 424 (85.2%) receiving a PEG and 74 (14.8%) an OGT. The PEG cohort had higher Charlson comorbidity Index (4.1 vs. 2.0, p = 0.002) and a higher incidence of post-operative acute renal failure (31.5 vs. 12.7%, p = 0.001). Post-operative mortality was not different when comparing the two groups (13.8 vs. 6.1%, p = 0.06). On multivariate analysis, while both PEG (OR: 7.87, 95%C.I: 5.88–10.52, p < 0.001) and OGT (OR 5.87, 95%CI: 2.19–15.75, p < 0.001) were independently associated with mortality, PEG conferred a higher mortality risk. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest reported study to date comparing outcomes between PEG and OGT in heart transplant patients. PEG does not confer any advantage over OGT in this patient population with respect to morbidity, mortality, and length of stay.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4840285
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48402852016-05-02 Comparing open gastrostomy tube to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube in heart transplant patients Ambur, Vishnu Taghavi, Sharven Jayarajan, Senthil Gaughan, John Toyoda, Yoshiya Dauer, Elizabeth Sjoholm, Lars Ola Pathak, Abhijit Santora, Thomas Goldberg, Amy J. Ann Med Surg (Lond) Original Research INTRODUCTION: Impaired wound healing due to immunosuppression has led some surgeons to preferentially use open gastrostomy tube (OGT) over percutaneous gastrostomy tube (PEG) in heart transplant patients when long-term enteral access is deemed necessary. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2005–2010) was queried for all heart transplant patients. Those receiving OGT were compared to those treated with PEG tube. RESULTS: There were 498 patients requiring long-term enteral access treated with a gastrostomy tube, with 424 (85.2%) receiving a PEG and 74 (14.8%) an OGT. The PEG cohort had higher Charlson comorbidity Index (4.1 vs. 2.0, p = 0.002) and a higher incidence of post-operative acute renal failure (31.5 vs. 12.7%, p = 0.001). Post-operative mortality was not different when comparing the two groups (13.8 vs. 6.1%, p = 0.06). On multivariate analysis, while both PEG (OR: 7.87, 95%C.I: 5.88–10.52, p < 0.001) and OGT (OR 5.87, 95%CI: 2.19–15.75, p < 0.001) were independently associated with mortality, PEG conferred a higher mortality risk. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest reported study to date comparing outcomes between PEG and OGT in heart transplant patients. PEG does not confer any advantage over OGT in this patient population with respect to morbidity, mortality, and length of stay. Elsevier 2016-03-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4840285/ /pubmed/27141303 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2016.03.023 Text en © 2016 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Research
Ambur, Vishnu
Taghavi, Sharven
Jayarajan, Senthil
Gaughan, John
Toyoda, Yoshiya
Dauer, Elizabeth
Sjoholm, Lars Ola
Pathak, Abhijit
Santora, Thomas
Goldberg, Amy J.
Comparing open gastrostomy tube to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube in heart transplant patients
title Comparing open gastrostomy tube to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube in heart transplant patients
title_full Comparing open gastrostomy tube to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube in heart transplant patients
title_fullStr Comparing open gastrostomy tube to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube in heart transplant patients
title_full_unstemmed Comparing open gastrostomy tube to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube in heart transplant patients
title_short Comparing open gastrostomy tube to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube in heart transplant patients
title_sort comparing open gastrostomy tube to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube in heart transplant patients
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4840285/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27141303
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2016.03.023
work_keys_str_mv AT amburvishnu comparingopengastrostomytubetopercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomytubeinhearttransplantpatients
AT taghavisharven comparingopengastrostomytubetopercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomytubeinhearttransplantpatients
AT jayarajansenthil comparingopengastrostomytubetopercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomytubeinhearttransplantpatients
AT gaughanjohn comparingopengastrostomytubetopercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomytubeinhearttransplantpatients
AT toyodayoshiya comparingopengastrostomytubetopercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomytubeinhearttransplantpatients
AT dauerelizabeth comparingopengastrostomytubetopercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomytubeinhearttransplantpatients
AT sjoholmlarsola comparingopengastrostomytubetopercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomytubeinhearttransplantpatients
AT pathakabhijit comparingopengastrostomytubetopercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomytubeinhearttransplantpatients
AT santorathomas comparingopengastrostomytubetopercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomytubeinhearttransplantpatients
AT goldbergamyj comparingopengastrostomytubetopercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomytubeinhearttransplantpatients