Cargando…

Percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: a retrospective analysis on outcomes and complications

Background and study aims  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) are techniques used for long-term enteral feeding. Our primary aim was to analyze procedure-related and 30-day mortality and complications between PEG and PRG in relation to indications...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Strijbos, Denise, Keszthelyi, Daniel, Gilissen, Lennard P. L., Lacko, Martin, Hoeijmakers, Janneke G. J., van der Leij, Christiaan, de Ridder, Rogier J. J., de Haan, Michiel W., Masclee, Ad A. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6811353/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31673622
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0953-1524
_version_ 1783462460978626560
author Strijbos, Denise
Keszthelyi, Daniel
Gilissen, Lennard P. L.
Lacko, Martin
Hoeijmakers, Janneke G. J.
van der Leij, Christiaan
de Ridder, Rogier J. J.
de Haan, Michiel W.
Masclee, Ad A. M.
author_facet Strijbos, Denise
Keszthelyi, Daniel
Gilissen, Lennard P. L.
Lacko, Martin
Hoeijmakers, Janneke G. J.
van der Leij, Christiaan
de Ridder, Rogier J. J.
de Haan, Michiel W.
Masclee, Ad A. M.
author_sort Strijbos, Denise
collection PubMed
description Background and study aims  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) are techniques used for long-term enteral feeding. Our primary aim was to analyze procedure-related and 30-day mortality and complications between PEG and PRG in relation to indications. Patients and methods  A single-center retrospective analysis was performed thath included all adult patients receiving initial PEG (January 2008 until April 2016) and PRG (January 2010 until April 2016). Outcomes were mortality (procedure-related, 30-day), complications (early (≤ 30 days) and late) and success rates. Results  A total of 760 procedures (469 PRG and 291 PEG) were analyzed. Most common indications were head and neck cancer (HNC), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Success rates for placement were 91.2 % for PEG and 97.1 % for PRG ( P  = 0.001). Procedure-related mortality was 1.7 % in PEG and 0.4 % in PRG ( P  = 0.113). The 30-day mortality was 10.7 % in PEG and 5.1 % in PRG ( P  = 0.481 after multivariate logistic regression) CVA was associated with higher 30-day mortality, whereas ALS, higher body weight, and prophylactic placements in HNC were associated with lower rates. Tube-related complications were less frequent in PEG, both early (2.7 % vs. 26.4 %, P  ≤ 0.001) and late (8.6 % vs. 31.5 %, P  ≤ 0.001). The percentage of major complications and infections did not differ. Conclusions  With respect to procedure-related and 30-day mortality, PEG and PRG compare equally. PRG had a higher procedural success rate. Tube-related complications and pain are less frequent after PEG compared to PRG. The choice for either PEG or PRG therefore should primarily be based on local facilities and expertise.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6811353
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher © Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68113532019-11-01 Percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: a retrospective analysis on outcomes and complications Strijbos, Denise Keszthelyi, Daniel Gilissen, Lennard P. L. Lacko, Martin Hoeijmakers, Janneke G. J. van der Leij, Christiaan de Ridder, Rogier J. J. de Haan, Michiel W. Masclee, Ad A. M. Endosc Int Open Background and study aims  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) are techniques used for long-term enteral feeding. Our primary aim was to analyze procedure-related and 30-day mortality and complications between PEG and PRG in relation to indications. Patients and methods  A single-center retrospective analysis was performed thath included all adult patients receiving initial PEG (January 2008 until April 2016) and PRG (January 2010 until April 2016). Outcomes were mortality (procedure-related, 30-day), complications (early (≤ 30 days) and late) and success rates. Results  A total of 760 procedures (469 PRG and 291 PEG) were analyzed. Most common indications were head and neck cancer (HNC), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Success rates for placement were 91.2 % for PEG and 97.1 % for PRG ( P  = 0.001). Procedure-related mortality was 1.7 % in PEG and 0.4 % in PRG ( P  = 0.113). The 30-day mortality was 10.7 % in PEG and 5.1 % in PRG ( P  = 0.481 after multivariate logistic regression) CVA was associated with higher 30-day mortality, whereas ALS, higher body weight, and prophylactic placements in HNC were associated with lower rates. Tube-related complications were less frequent in PEG, both early (2.7 % vs. 26.4 %, P  ≤ 0.001) and late (8.6 % vs. 31.5 %, P  ≤ 0.001). The percentage of major complications and infections did not differ. Conclusions  With respect to procedure-related and 30-day mortality, PEG and PRG compare equally. PRG had a higher procedural success rate. Tube-related complications and pain are less frequent after PEG compared to PRG. The choice for either PEG or PRG therefore should primarily be based on local facilities and expertise. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019-11 2019-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6811353/ /pubmed/31673622 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0953-1524 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Strijbos, Denise
Keszthelyi, Daniel
Gilissen, Lennard P. L.
Lacko, Martin
Hoeijmakers, Janneke G. J.
van der Leij, Christiaan
de Ridder, Rogier J. J.
de Haan, Michiel W.
Masclee, Ad A. M.
Percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: a retrospective analysis on outcomes and complications
title Percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: a retrospective analysis on outcomes and complications
title_full Percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: a retrospective analysis on outcomes and complications
title_fullStr Percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: a retrospective analysis on outcomes and complications
title_full_unstemmed Percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: a retrospective analysis on outcomes and complications
title_short Percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: a retrospective analysis on outcomes and complications
title_sort percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: a retrospective analysis on outcomes and complications
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6811353/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31673622
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0953-1524
work_keys_str_mv AT strijbosdenise percutaneousendoscopicversusradiologicgastrostomyforenteralfeedingaretrospectiveanalysisonoutcomesandcomplications
AT keszthelyidaniel percutaneousendoscopicversusradiologicgastrostomyforenteralfeedingaretrospectiveanalysisonoutcomesandcomplications
AT gilissenlennardpl percutaneousendoscopicversusradiologicgastrostomyforenteralfeedingaretrospectiveanalysisonoutcomesandcomplications
AT lackomartin percutaneousendoscopicversusradiologicgastrostomyforenteralfeedingaretrospectiveanalysisonoutcomesandcomplications
AT hoeijmakersjannekegj percutaneousendoscopicversusradiologicgastrostomyforenteralfeedingaretrospectiveanalysisonoutcomesandcomplications
AT vanderleijchristiaan percutaneousendoscopicversusradiologicgastrostomyforenteralfeedingaretrospectiveanalysisonoutcomesandcomplications
AT deridderrogierjj percutaneousendoscopicversusradiologicgastrostomyforenteralfeedingaretrospectiveanalysisonoutcomesandcomplications
AT dehaanmichielw percutaneousendoscopicversusradiologicgastrostomyforenteralfeedingaretrospectiveanalysisonoutcomesandcomplications
AT mascleeadam percutaneousendoscopicversusradiologicgastrostomyforenteralfeedingaretrospectiveanalysisonoutcomesandcomplications