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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |