Cargando…

Percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG): first prospective clinical trial

PURPOSE: To report the results of the first-in-human trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of the percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG) technique. METHODS: A prospective, industry-sponsored single-arm clinical trial of PUG insertion was performed in 25 adult patients under investigational dev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Accorsi, Fabio, Chung, Jonathan, Mujoomdar, Amol, Wiseman, Daniele, Kribs, Stewart, Cool, Derek W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8502161/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34240242
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03200-x
_version_ 1784580831865470976
author Accorsi, Fabio
Chung, Jonathan
Mujoomdar, Amol
Wiseman, Daniele
Kribs, Stewart
Cool, Derek W.
author_facet Accorsi, Fabio
Chung, Jonathan
Mujoomdar, Amol
Wiseman, Daniele
Kribs, Stewart
Cool, Derek W.
author_sort Accorsi, Fabio
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To report the results of the first-in-human trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of the percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG) technique. METHODS: A prospective, industry-sponsored single-arm clinical trial of PUG insertion was performed in 25 adult patients under investigational device exemption (mean age 64 ± 15 years, 92% men, 80% inpatients, mean BMI 24.5 ± 2.7 kg/m(2)). A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort of 25 patients who received percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) was generated as an institutional control (mean age 66 ± 14 years, 92% men, 80% inpatients, mean BMI 24.0 ± 2.7 kg/m(2)). Primary outcomes included successful insertion and 30-day procedure-related adverse events (AE’s). Secondary outcomes included procedural duration, sedation requirements, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: All PUG procedures were successful, including 3/25 [12%] performed bedside within the ICU. There was no significant difference between PUG and PRG in rates of mild AE’s (3/25 [12%] for PUG and 7/25 [28%] for PRG, p = 0.16) or moderate AE’s (1/25 [4%] for PUG and 0/25 for PRG, p = 0.31). There were no severe AE’s or 30-day procedure-related mortality in either group. Procedural room time was longer for PUG (56.5 ± 14.1 min) than PRG (39.3 ± 15.0 min, p < 0.001). PUG procedure time was significantly shorter after a procedural enhancement, the incorporation of a Gauss meter to facilitate successful magnetic gastropexy. Length of stay for outpatients did not significantly differ (2.4 ± 0.5 days for PUG and 2.6 ± 1.0 days for PRG, p = 0.70). CONCLUSION: PUG appears effective with a safety profile similar to PRG. Bedside point-of-care gastrostomy tube insertion using the PUG technique shows promise. Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03575754. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00261-021-03200-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8502161
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85021612021-10-22 Percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG): first prospective clinical trial Accorsi, Fabio Chung, Jonathan Mujoomdar, Amol Wiseman, Daniele Kribs, Stewart Cool, Derek W. Abdom Radiol (NY) Interventional Radiology PURPOSE: To report the results of the first-in-human trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of the percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG) technique. METHODS: A prospective, industry-sponsored single-arm clinical trial of PUG insertion was performed in 25 adult patients under investigational device exemption (mean age 64 ± 15 years, 92% men, 80% inpatients, mean BMI 24.5 ± 2.7 kg/m(2)). A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort of 25 patients who received percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) was generated as an institutional control (mean age 66 ± 14 years, 92% men, 80% inpatients, mean BMI 24.0 ± 2.7 kg/m(2)). Primary outcomes included successful insertion and 30-day procedure-related adverse events (AE’s). Secondary outcomes included procedural duration, sedation requirements, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: All PUG procedures were successful, including 3/25 [12%] performed bedside within the ICU. There was no significant difference between PUG and PRG in rates of mild AE’s (3/25 [12%] for PUG and 7/25 [28%] for PRG, p = 0.16) or moderate AE’s (1/25 [4%] for PUG and 0/25 for PRG, p = 0.31). There were no severe AE’s or 30-day procedure-related mortality in either group. Procedural room time was longer for PUG (56.5 ± 14.1 min) than PRG (39.3 ± 15.0 min, p < 0.001). PUG procedure time was significantly shorter after a procedural enhancement, the incorporation of a Gauss meter to facilitate successful magnetic gastropexy. Length of stay for outpatients did not significantly differ (2.4 ± 0.5 days for PUG and 2.6 ± 1.0 days for PRG, p = 0.70). CONCLUSION: PUG appears effective with a safety profile similar to PRG. Bedside point-of-care gastrostomy tube insertion using the PUG technique shows promise. Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03575754. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00261-021-03200-x. Springer US 2021-07-09 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8502161/ /pubmed/34240242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03200-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Interventional Radiology
Accorsi, Fabio
Chung, Jonathan
Mujoomdar, Amol
Wiseman, Daniele
Kribs, Stewart
Cool, Derek W.
Percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG): first prospective clinical trial
title Percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG): first prospective clinical trial
title_full Percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG): first prospective clinical trial
title_fullStr Percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG): first prospective clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG): first prospective clinical trial
title_short Percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG): first prospective clinical trial
title_sort percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (pug): first prospective clinical trial
topic Interventional Radiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8502161/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34240242
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03200-x
work_keys_str_mv AT accorsifabio percutaneousultrasoundgastrostomypugfirstprospectiveclinicaltrial
AT chungjonathan percutaneousultrasoundgastrostomypugfirstprospectiveclinicaltrial
AT mujoomdaramol percutaneousultrasoundgastrostomypugfirstprospectiveclinicaltrial
AT wisemandaniele percutaneousultrasoundgastrostomypugfirstprospectiveclinicaltrial
AT kribsstewart percutaneousultrasoundgastrostomypugfirstprospectiveclinicaltrial
AT coolderekw percutaneousultrasoundgastrostomypugfirstprospectiveclinicaltrial