Ultrasound-assisted direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) tube placement

Prognostic outcomes after direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy in elderly patients: comparison with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) is an alternative method of enteral feeding to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Although long-term outcomes of PEG have been reported, little is known regarding the outcomes of DPEJ.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted including 115 and 651 consecutive attempts of DPEJ and PEG, respectively, in a total of 766 elderly patients between April 2004 and March 2019. Patients' clinical background, procedural and long-term outcomes, survival analysis, and cause of death were analyzed.

RESULTS

Successful placement rates were 93.9% and 97.1% for DPEJ and PEG, respectively. There was no significant difference in procedure-related adverse events (AEs) between the DPEJ and PEG groups. Rates of pneumonia, vomiting, and upper GI bleeding were significantly lower, whereas those of fistula enlargement and ileus were significantly higher in the DPEJ group as long-term AEs. The median survival periods were 694 and 734 days for DPEJ and PEG, respectively, with no significant differences between the 2 groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that age 80 years old or older, C-reactive protein level of 1.0 mg/dL or higher, and the presence of diabetes were independent risk factors for mortality after DPEJ. Respiratory tract infection was the primary cause of death in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DPEJ is considered a safe and feasible method of access for enteral feeding as well as PEG. Although the survival period after DPEJ may be expected to be as long as that with PEG, DPEJ-specific AEs should be kept in mind on long-term feeding.

Current considerations of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy

BACKGROUOND: Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) is a well-known approach to deliver postpyloric enteral nutritional support to individuals who cannot tolerate gastric feeding. However, it is technically difficult, and some case series have reported significant procedural failure rates. The present article describes current indications, successes and complications of DPEJ placement.

METHODS

A MEDLINE database search was performed to identify relevant articles using the key words "direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy", "percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy", and "percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with a jejunal extension tube". Additional articles were identified by a manual search of the references cited in the key articles obtained in the primary search.

RESULTS

DPEJ is gradually becoming more common in the treatment of patients who cannot tolerate gastric feeding. Differences in patient selection and technique modifications may contribute to the various success rates reported. Failure is most often due to inadequate transillumination or gastroduodenal obstruction. Currently, there are limited data to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of DPEJ.

CONCLUSION

The clinical use of DPEJ is increasing. With appropriate care and expertise, DPEJ may prove to be reliable and safe.

Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy: a case series in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) is a well-known approach to deliver postpyloric enteral nutrition support to individuals who cannot tolerate gastric feeding. DPEJ addresses many of the shortcomings of jejunal feeding tubes placed through percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes. The safety and efficacy of DPEJ in adults has been previously reported. There are no reports on the use of DPEJ in pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to report on 5 pediatric patients who underwent DPEJ placement between January 2000 and January 2003 over the available follow-up periods.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

SETTING

University of Utah Health Sciences Center and the Medical University of South Carolina.

PATIENTS

Five patients, age range 4 to 17 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Rate of successful tube placement, major and minor complications, and outcomes including weight gain and recurrent aspiration after DPEJ placement.

RESULTS

All 5 attempted DPEJs were placed successfully with 2 minor complications of peristomal leakage and peristomal skin infection. One DPEJ was replaced 2 years after placement because of fungal degradation. The mean weight gain among all patients was 10.3 kg in a mean of 22.6 months.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective, small series.

CONCLUSIONS

DPEJ placement appears to be a safe and effective approach to enteral nutritional support in pediatric patients requiring long-term access to the jejunum. No major complications occurred and all patients gained weight after tube placement.

Minimizing endoscopic complications in enteral access

Percutaneous enteral access techniques are important tools in the armamentarium of the skilled endoscopist. Endoscopic and post-procedural complications of enteral access are not uncommon, and the increasing population of patients requiring long-term feeding tubes places even more emphasis on minimizing them. Most enteral feeding tube complications are minor, but several have the potential to cause significant morbidity and even mortality if not recognized and managed correctly. When complications do arise, early recognition and aggressive management are essential to optimize outcomes. Expertise with the proper patient selection, choice of feeding tube and insertion techniques are critical to minimizing endoscopic complications of percutaneous enteral feeding tubes.

Abdominal CT as a predictor of outcome before attempted direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy

BACKGROUND

Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) placement succeeds in 72% to 86% of attempts. Failure is most often because of inadequate transillumination or gastroduodenal obstruction. Even in failed cases, patients are exposed to the risks of anesthesia, exploratory percutaneous needle punctures, and the cost burden of suboptimal resource utilization. Hence, a preprocedure predictor of outcome would be useful.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether review of clinically available abdominal CTs can predict the outcome of subsequent DPEJ attempts.

DESIGN

Retrospectively conducted blinded review of abdominal CTs performed within 30 days before attempted DPEJ. Objective anatomic features potentially pertinent to DPEJ success were scored, and a prediction of the anticipated procedural outcome was made.

SETTING

A large tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

A total of 115 patients who underwent attempted DPEJ and who also had an abdominal CT in the preceding 30 days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Reviewer's overall prediction of success, 3 objective anatomic measurements.

RESULTS

For the overall prediction of success, a CT performed poorly, with a sensitivity of 60%, a specificity of 53%, a positive predictive value of 71%, and a negative predictive value of 40%. Mean abdominal-wall thickness was significantly greater in the failures than the successes (27 vs 21 mm, P = .02), and just 39% of the procedures in patients with an abdominal-wall thickness >3 cm were successful.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective.

CONCLUSIONS

Failed DPEJ attempts were associated with greater patient abdominal-wall thickness, and this should be taken into consideration before attempted DPEJ. Otherwise, review of existing abdominal CTs appears to have limited utility in predicting DPEJ outcome.

Comparison of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy and PEG with jejunal extension

BACKGROUND

Jejunostomy tubes can be placed endoscopically by means of percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension (PEG-J) or by direct percutaneous jejunostomy. These 2 techniques were retrospectively compared in patients requiring long-term jejunal feeding.

METHOD

An endoscopy database was used to identify all patients who underwent endoscopic jejunal feeding tube placement from January 1996 to May 2001. Patients with a history of upper GI surgery were excluded. There were 56 patients with a direct percutaneous jejunostomy and 49 with a percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension. Patients in the direct percutaneous jejunostomy group received a 20F direct jejunostomy tube; a 20F PEG tube with a 9F jejunal extension was used in the percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension group. Medical records for the period of 6 months after establishment of jejunal access were reviewed. Complications and need for further endoscopic intervention within this time frame were recorded. The duration of feeding tube patency (number of days from established jejunal access to first endoscopic reintervention) was compared for both groups.

RESULTS

Feeding tube patency was significantly longer in patients who had a direct percutaneous jejunostomy compared with those with a percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension. Within the 6-month period, 5 patients with a direct percutaneous jejunostomy required endoscopic reintervention for tube dysfunction compared with 19 patients who had a percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who require long-term jejunal feeding, a direct percutaneous jejunostomy with a 20F tube provides more stable jejunal access compared with a percutaneous gastrostomy with jejunal extension with a 9F extension and has a lower associated rate of endoscopic reintervention.