Reduced risk of peristomal infection of direct percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in cancer patients: comparison with the pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy procedure

Hybrid percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (Hybrid PEG) improves patient safety by combining pull-through technique with gastropexy

Background and study aims

The direct puncture technique has been associated with a better safety profile compared with the classical pull-through technique for insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). In this study, the safety of the hybrid PEG technique, combining gastropexy with the pull-through technique, was analyzed in a large retrospective patient cohort.

Patients and methods

Clinical data from patients undergoing PEG insertion in a high-volume center for endoscopy were included retrospectively between January 2016 and December 2021. Patient characteristics and complication rates were correlated in univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

Data from 351 patients undergoing PEG insertion with the hybrid PEG technique were compared with 145 procedures with the direct puncture technique and 1073 procedures with the pull-through technique. In the group where gastropexy was performed (hybrid PEG and direct puncture), we could not find any significant differences in frequency of major and minor complications. Comparing the pull-through technique with the gastropexy group, we detected a five-fold higher major complication rate and a doubled minor complication rate for the pull-through technique. Multivariate analysis confirmed the protective role of gastropexy, with an odds ratio of 0.166 (0.084-0.329; P < 0.001) for major complications.

Conclusions

Hybrid PEG and direct puncture are equally safe PEG insertion techniques, with significantly better safety profiles than the pull-through technique. Despite the retrospective design of the study, these results suggest preferential use of hybrid PEG due to handling.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on gastrostomy feeding tubes: methodology and review of evidence

This article from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying summary and recommendations article for strategies to manage endoscopically placed gastrostomy tubes. This article was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and specifically addresses the utility of PEG versus interventional radiology-guided gastrostomy (IR-G), the need for withholding antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications, appropriate timing to initiate tube feedings, and appropriate selection of the gastrostomy technique in patients with malignant dysphagia. In patients needing enteral access, the ASGE suggests PEG as the preferred technique for initial gastrostomy over IR-G. The ASGE recommends that tube feeding can be safely started within 4 hours of the gastrostomy without the need for an intentional delay. The ASGE suggests that a PEG can be performed without the need to withhold antiplatelet medications. In patients on anticoagulants who need to undergo PEG placement, the ASGE suggests that the periprocedural management of anticoagulants should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion with the patient regarding the risk of bleeding versus cardiovascular adverse events. In patients with malignant dysphagia, either transoral "Pull" PEG or transcutaneous "Direct" PEG can be performed for initial enteral access.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on gastrostomy feeding tubes: summary and recommendations

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage endoscopically placed gastrostomy tubes. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the utility of PEG versus interventional radiology-guided gastrostomy (IR-G), need for withholding antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications before PEG tube placement, appropriate timing to initiate tube feeding after PEG, and selection of the appropriate technique of gastrostomy in patients with malignant dysphagia. In patients needing enteral access, the ASGE suggests PEG as the preferred technique for initial gastrotomy over IR-G. The ASGE recommends that tube feeding can be safely started within 4 hours of gastrostomy. The ASGE suggests that PEG can be performed without withholding antiplatelet medications. The ASGE suggests that the periprocedural management of anticoagulants should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion regarding the risk of bleeding versus cardiovascular events. In patients with malignant dysphagia, either transoral "pull" PEG or direct PEG can be performed for initial enteral access.

Complication rates of direct puncture and pull-through techniques for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: Results from a large multicenter cohort

Background and study aims  Two different techniques for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) have been developed: classical pull-through and direct puncture techniques. This study compared the complication rate for both techniques in a large retrospective patient cohort. Patients and methods  Clinical data from patients who received a PEG in four high-volume centers for endoscopy were included retrospectively between January 2016 and December 2018. Patient characteristics and complication rates were correlated in univariate and multivariate analyses. Results  Data from 1014 patients undergoing a PEG insertion by the pull-through technique were compared to 183 patients for whom the direct puncture technique was used. The direct puncture technique was associated with a 50 % reduction in minor and 85.7 % reduction in major complications when compared to the pull-through technique. Multivariate analysis of these data revealed an odds ratio of 0.067 (0.02-0.226; P  < 0.001) for major complications in the direct puncture group. Conclusions  Compared to the pull-through technique, the direct puncture technique resulted in a significant reduction in complications. Despite the retrospective design of this study, these results suggest that the direct puncture technique may be preferable to improve patient safety.

Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Radiological Gastrostomy (PRG) as a Rescue Measure for Enteral Feeding in Patients with Advanced Head, Neck, and Upper Digestive Malignancies

Background Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy is an established mode of enteral feeding for nutritional support for patients with dysphagia from upper digestive tract malignancy. Its role as a rescue measure in patients with advanced malignancy, presenting with absolute dysphagia and failure of nasogastric tube insertion has not been well established.

Purpose This study was performed to assess technical success and long-term outcomes of percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (push type) for nutritional support for patients with absolute dysphagia as a last ditch nonsurgical rescue effort for enteral access.

Materials and Methods This was a prospective observational study of 31 patients who underwent push-type percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy over a period of 2 years (March 2017–March 2019). The study was a part of a larger trial approved by the institutional ethics committee. Patients were followed till the removal of tube, death, or 1 year, whichever was earlier. Gastrostomy tube-related problems and complications were documented. Descriptive summary statistics were employed to analyze the success rate and complications.

Results Thirty-one patients with mean age 56 years (26–78 years) including 18 males and 13 females with head and neck squamous cell cancer and esophageal cancer presenting with absolute dysphagia or significant dysphagia with failed nasogastric or endoscopic enteral access were included. Overall technical success was 93.5% (29/31), achieved in 26/31 patients with just fluoroscopy guidance and 3/5 patients with computed tomography guidance. One major (3.3%) and two minor (6.5%) complications were encountered. Five out of 29 gastrostomy tubes had to be exchanged, after a mean of 44 days (1–128 days) after insertion.

Conclusion Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy is a safe and effective intervention even as a rescue measure in patients with absolute dysphagia from advanced upper digestive tract malignancies.

Metastasis to gastrostomy sites from upper aerodigestive tract malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Metastasis to the gastrostomy site in patients with upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) malignancies is a rare but devastating adverse event that has been poorly described. Our aim was to determine the overall incidence and clinicopathologic characteristics observed with development of gastrostomy site metastasis in patients with UADT cancers.

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 6138 studies retrieved from Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Register after being queried for studies including gastrostomy site metastasis in patients with UADT malignancies.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 121 studies. Pooled analysis showed an overall event rate gastrostomy site metastasis of .5% (95% confidence interval [CI], .4%-.7%). Subgroup analysis showed an event rate of .56% (95% CI, .40%-.79%) with the pull technique and .29% (95% CI, .15%-.55%) with the push technique. Clinicopathologic characteristics observed with gastrostomy site metastasis were late-stage disease (T3/T4) (57.8%), positive lymph node status (51.2%), and no evidence of systemic disease (M0) (62.8%) at initial presentation. The average time from gastrostomy placement to diagnosis of metastasis was 7.78 ± 4.9 months, average tumor size on detection was 4.65 cm (standard deviation, 2.02), and average length of survival was 7.26 months (standard deviation, 6.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrostomy site metastasis is a rare but serious adverse event that occurs at an overall rate of .5%, particularly in patients with advanced-stage disease, and is observed with a very poor prognosis. These findings emphasize a need for clinical practice guidelines to include a regular assessment of the PEG site and highlight the importance of detection and management of gastrostomy site metastasis by the multidisciplinary care oncology team.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: dealing with the issue of dislodgement

Introduction: Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) is accepted as an efficient method to provide long-term enteral nutrition. PEG accidental dislodgement (device exteriorization confirmed by expert evaluation) rate is high and can lead to major morbidity.Objective: To identify independent risk factors for PEG accidental dislodgement.Methods: Retrospective, single-center study, including consecutive patients submitted to PEG procedure, for 38 consecutive months. Every patient had 12 months minimum follow-up after PEG placement. Univariate analysis selected variables with at least marginal association (p < .15) with the outcome variable, PEG dislodgement, which were included in a logistic regression multivariate model. Discriminative power was assessed using area under curve (AUC) of the receiver operating curve (ROC).Results: We included 164 patients, 67.7% (111) were female, mean age was 81 years. We report 59 (36%) PEG dislodgements, of which 13 (7.9%) corresponded to early dislodgements. The variables with marginal association were hypoalbuminemia (p = .095); living at home (p = .049); living in a nursing home (p = .074); cerebrovascular disease (CVD) (p = .028); weight change of more than 5 kg, either increase or decrease (p = .001); psychomotor agitation (p < .001); distance inner bumper-abdominal wall (p = .034) and irregular appointment follow-up (p = .149). At logistic multivariate regression, the significant variables after model adjustment were CVD OR 4.8 (CI 95% 2.0-11.8), weight change OR 4.7 (CI 95%1.6-13.9) and psychomotor agitation OR 18.5 (CI 95% 5.2-65.6), with excellent discriminative power (AUC ROC 0.797 [CI95% 0.719-0.875]).Conclusion: PEG is a common procedure and accidental dislodgement is a frequent complication. CVD, psychomotor agitation and weight change >5 kg increase the risk of this complication and should be seriously considered when establishing patients' individual care requirements.

Colonoscopy-assisted percutaneous sigmoidopexy: a novel, simple, safe, and efficient treatment for inoperable sigmoid volvulus (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Many patients with sigmoid volvulus are old with co-morbidities, making elective surgery prohibitive. Colonoscopic management is often successful but volvulus often recurs. We devised a method of colonoscopy-assisted percutaneous sigmoidopexy as an alternative method to prevent recurrence of sigmoid volvulus. This study aimed to assess its safety and effectiveness.

METHODS

Patients with sigmoid volvulus American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification ≥3 or Barthel index <30 were included. We excluded patients with intestinal necrosis and those who were unable to be repositioned but who could undergo intestinal resection. Colonoscopy-assisted sigmoidopexy was performed under radiographic observation. First, a colonoscope was inserted to the fixation site. A site for percutaneous puncture of the colon was identified by transmitted illumination and finger pressure. An exploratory puncture through the abdominal wall was made with a 23-gauge cattelan needle with the patient under local anesthesia, followed by a skin incision. Sigmoid fixation was then performed using a 2-shot anchor device that allows the sigmoid colon to be sutured to the abdominal wall. Fixation was repeated at 5 to 10 sites (average 8.8). The primary outcome measurement was sigmoid volvulus recurrence within 12 months. The secondary outcome measurement was adverse events.

RESULTS

Eight patients received colonoscopy-assisted sigmoidopexy, and no sigmoid volvulus recurred during the 12-month follow-up period. One case of postoperative subcutaneous emphysema was successfully managed with conservative therapy.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy-assisted sigmoidopexy was an effective, safe alternative method to prevent the recurrence of sigmoid volvulus.

Tumor implantation following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion for head and neck and oesophageal cancer: Review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Because of publication bias, there is uncertainty about the true incidence of tumor seeding or implantation in patients with head and neck or oesophageal cancer undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) insertion.

METHODS

In order to obtain a more reliable estimate of risk, a systematic review was undertaken. Randomized or non-randomized studies and case reports were identified by electronic searching. A risk of bias assessment was carried out for each study.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight cases from 74 published case reports and 1 unpublished case were identified. Synchronous distant metastases were present in 37%. Analysis of case series (6192 patients) considered to carry a moderate risk of bias suggests an incidence of seeding after PEG insertion of 0.32%. Studies carrying a lower risk of bias indicate a risk of seeding closer to 1 in 2000.

CONCLUSION

The true risk of seeding after PEG insertion is probably less than 1 in 1000.

Comparing Outcomes Between "Pull" Versus "Push" Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Acute Care Surgery: Under-Reported Pull Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Incidence of Tube Dislodgement

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) complications are often under-reported in the literature, especially regarding the incidence of tube dislodgement (TD). TD can cause significant morbidity depending on its timing. We compared outcomes between "push" and "pull" PEGs. We hypothesized that push PEGs, because of its T-fasteners and balloon tip, would have a lower incidence of TD and complications compared with pull PEGs.

METHODS

We performed a chart review of our prospectively maintained acute care surgery database for patients who underwent PEG tube placement from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2013. Data regarding age, gender, body mass index, indications (trauma versus nontrauma), and complications (including TD) were extracted. Procedure-related complications were classified as either major if patients required an operative intervention or minor if they did not. We compared outcomes between pull PEG and push PEG. Multiple regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with major complications.

RESULTS

During the 4-y study period, 264 patients underwent pull PEGs and 59 underwent push PEGs. Age, gender, body mass index, and indications were similar between the two groups. The overall complications (major and minor) were similar (20% pull versus 22% push, P = 0.61). The incidence of TD was also similar (12% pull versus 9% push, P = 0.49). However, TD associated with major complications was higher in pull PEGs but was not statistically significant (6% pull versus 2% push, P = 0.21). Multiple regression analysis showed that dislodged pull PEG was associated with major complications (odds ratio 29.5; 95% confidence interval, 11.3-76.9; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of pull PEG TD associated with major complications is under-recognized. Specific measures should be undertaken to help prevent pull PEG TD.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, therapeutic.

Usage characteristics and adverse event rates ​of the direct puncture and pull techniques for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with malignant tumors of the upper aerodigestive tract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Patients with malignant tumors of the upper gastrointestinal tract are at risk of weight loss. Early supportive nutrition therapy is therefore recommended and usually requires placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). The aim of this study was to compare adverse events and usage characteristics of the direct puncture technique with those of the traditional pull technique when used in patients with endoscopically passable tumors. The primary endpoint was the rate of inflammatory adverse events (AEs) at the gastrostomy fistula. The secondary endpoint was the long-term rate of puncture-site metastases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 One hundred twenty patients (median age 56; IQR 36, 86 years) were randomized and treated per protocol in this prospective open randomized single-center study. Follow-ups were conducted on the third and seventh post-interventional days, after 1, 3 and 6 months and the last follow-up 5 years after intervention.

RESULTS

 Within the short-term follow-up period of 6 months after PEG placement, AEs were noted in 47 patients (39.2 %). These included 22 inflammations and 16 device dislocations and were mainly found in the puncture group (33 vs. 14 in the pull group) with a significantly increased incidence in the first month after PEG insertion ( P  = 0.001). Evaluation of the 5-year data did not reveal any significant differences. The gastrostomy tube was used in 101 patients (84.2 %) (range 18 days to 5 years).

CONCLUSIONS

 Our results favor the pull technique for patients with endoscopically passable tumors of the upper gastrointestinal tract due to less short-term adverse events. Both systems contributed equally to secure long-term use.

Laparoscopic-Assisted Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy

There are a variety of techniques for gastrostomy tube placement. Endoscopic and radiologic approaches have almost entirely superseded surgical placement. However, an aging population and significant advancements in modern healthcare have resulted in patients with increasingly complex medical issues or postsurgical anatomy. The rising prevalence of obesity has also created technical challenges for proceduralists of many specialties. When patients with these comorbidities develop the need for long-term enteral nutrition and feeding tube placement, standard approaches such as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) by endoscopists and percutaneous image-guided gastrostomy (PIG) by interventional radiologists may be technically difficult or impossible. For these challenging situations, laparoscopic-assisted PEG (LAPEG) is an alternative option. LAPEG combines the advantages of PEG with direct intraperitoneal visualization, helping ensure a safe tube placement tract free of intervening organs or structures. In this review, we highlight some of the important factors of first-line gastrostomy techniques, with an emphasis on the utility and procedural technique of LAPEG when they are not feasible.

Systemic Prophylactic Antibiotics for the Modified Introducer Method for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the most common method of enteral nutrition in patients who require long-term tube feeding. According to meta-analyses, administration of systemic prophylactic antibiotics for PEG reduces peristomal infection. However, with several recent developments in the procedure and instruments, the risk of infection might have been reduced. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for a modified introducer method of PEG.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind trial assessed 278 patients undergoing PEG for inclusion. Ninety-one patients with an indication for PEG who gave informed consent to participate were randomized. Forty-six patients received prophylactic ampicillin and 45 patients received a placebo. A modified introducer method of PEG using a Seldinger PEG kit was performed. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically evident wound infection within 3 days after PEG.

RESULTS

Wound infection within 3 days was observed in none in the prophylaxis group and in 1 patient in the control group (P=0.4945). There was no significant difference between 2 groups in the other parameters, including peristomal infection within 7 days, overall infection, white blood cell counts, C-reactive protein level, and successive rate of finishing antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

For wound infection within 3 days, noninferiority of the placebo group to the antibiotics group was preliminarily suggested with our criteria, but not for peristomal infection within 7 days. More strict criteria for noninferiority should be examined in a further large sample study.

Comparison of the pull and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in patients with head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients is associated with higher complication and mortality rates when compared to a general patient population. The pull technique is still the preferred technique worldwide but it has some limitations. The aim of this study is to compare the pull and introducer PEG techniques in patients with HNC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study is based on a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of 309 patients with HNC who underwent PEG in the Cancer Institute of São Paulo.

RESULTS

The procedure was performed with the standard endoscope in 205 patients and the introducer technique was used in 137 patients. There was one procedure-related mortality. Age, sex and albumin level were similar in both groups. However in the introducer technique group, patients had a higher tumor stage, a lower Karnofsky status, and presented more frequently with tracheostomy and trismus. Overall, major, minor, immediate and late complications and 30-day mortality rates were similar but the introducer technique group presented more minor bleeding and tube dysfunctions.

CONCLUSION

The push and introducer PEG techniques seem to be both safe and effective but present different complication profiles. The choice of PEG technique in patients with HNC should be made individually.

Peritonitis related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy using the direct method for cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) using the direct method is generally indicated for cancer patients. However, there are little available data about peritonitis related to this method. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to assess peritonitis related to PEG using the direct method in patients with cancer.

METHODS

We assessed the prevalence of peritonitis and the relationship between peritonitis and patients' backgrounds, as well as the clinical course after peritonitis.

RESULTS

Between December 2008 and December 2011, peritonitis was found in 9 (2.1 %) of 421 patients. Of the 9 patients with peritonitis, 4 had received PEG prior to chemoradiotherapy. Emergency surgical drainage was required in 1 patient, and the remaining 8 recovered with conservative treatment. Peritonitis occurred within 8 days of PEG for 8 of the 9 patients and occurred within 2 days of suture removal for 4 of the 9 patients.

CONCLUSION

Peritonitis related to PEG using the direct method was less frequent for cancer patients. Peritonitis tended to occur within a few days after removal of securing suture and in patients with palliative stage.

The usefulness and safety of the introducer technique using a bumper-button-type device as compared with the pull method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

PURPOSE

To describe our initial experiences with the standardized introducer technique for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and to compare clinical outcomes and complications with the pull technique.

METHODS

The introducer technique was used on 91 patients. The clinical outcomes of procedures were retrospectively collected and compared with those of 22 patients who had procedures using the pull technique.

RESULTS

Mean operation time was significantly longer in the introducer technique group as compared with the pull technique group. Increased inflammation markers (body temperature, white blood cell count, and C-reactive protein) were observed in the pull technique group as compared with the introducer technique group. Incidences of peristomal infection and pneumonia were lower in the introducer method group than in the pull method group.

CONCLUSIONS

The introducer technique is a useful and safe method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in terms of reduced incidences of peristomal infection, pneumonia, pain, and discomfort.

Comparison of modified introducer method with pull method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: prospective randomized study

AIM

The pull method is associated with a high incidence of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) site infection. The introducer method has been shown to be less likely to cause infection, because it avoids the passage of a tube through the oropharynx. The aim of the present study was to compare the modified introducer method with the pull method for PEG.

METHODS

The study included patients who were scheduled for PEG from April 2008 to April 2010. The patients were randomly assigned to receive PEG by the pull method (Group I) or the modified introducer method (Group II). We evaluated the incidence of PEG site infection, some infection-associated parameters and other complications. Wound infections were evaluated in accordance with the Jain's score.

RESULTS

Of 62 patients enrolled, 31 patients were assigned to each of the two groups. One patient in Group I died on the day after PEG. The cause of death and relationship with PEG were unclear. Excluding this patient, 61 were included in the per-protocol analysis. The incidence of peristomal infection within 1 week was slightly lower in Group II than in Group I, albeit not statistically significant (12.9% vs 23.3%, P = 0.3354). White blood cell count (WBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were significantly lower in Group II (WBC: P = 0.0345, CRP: P = 0.0346). None of the patients underwent surgical procedures for the treatment of peristomal infection.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study show that gastrostomy by the modified introducer method may be less likely, although not significantly, to cause peristomal infection than the pull method.

Effect of the introducer technique compared with the pull technique on the peristomal infection rate in PEG: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Peristomal infection is a main complication of PEG. The pull technique appears to be associated with higher infection rates compared with the introducer technique, although published results are controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To determine which technique is associated with a higher risk of infection.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Studies reporting rates of peristomal infection after PEG performed by either the pull or introducer technique.

PATIENTS

This study involved 2336 patients from 6 comparative and 10 observational studies.

INTERVENTION

Public MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine journal articles database), Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information databases and proceedings of two meetings, Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week, were searched. Both comparative and observational studies were included and analyzed separately.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Effect measures from each comparative study were reported as the odds ratio (OR). The pooled effect was then calculated. The infection rate in each observational study was also calculated, and a summary effect was then determined.

RESULTS

In comparative studies, the risk of infection was significantly higher with the pull technique (OR 13.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6-36.8; P < .0001). Similarly, observational studies also reported higher infection rates with the pull technique (10.7%; 95% CI, 4.9-21.8 with the pull technique vs 0.9%; 95% CI, 0.2-4.5 with the introducer technique).

LIMITATIONS

Few studies were available for inclusion, and there was a high risk of bias among the comparative studies.

CONCLUSION

The pull technique appears to be associated with a significantly higher risk of infection compared with the introducer technique.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: Mortality and Risk Factors for Survival

Background

The present study evaluated long-term risk factors for survival in patients who have undergone Percutaneous endoscopic Gastrostomy, as well as morbidity and mortality rates.

Methods

The retrospective study included 44 patients who underwent placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube at various departments at Dicle University Medical Faculty between April 2008-September 2010.

Results

The study evaluated 23 women (52.3%) and 21 men (47.7%), with a median age of 50 ± 20 (17 - 87) years. Median time for Percutaneous endoscopic Gastrostomy placement was 23 ± 8.3 (5 - 45) minutes per patient. Total morbidity was 15.9%, including wound infection (4), tube occlusion (1), peristomal leakage (1), and abdominal wall bleeding (1). Short-term complications were not associated with albumin level (P = 0.312).The median hospital stay was 49.34 ± 60.99 (1 - 314) days. The mean follow-up period was 13.07 ± 13.12 (1 - 41) months. The above-normal level of albumin was found to be effective on survival (P = 0.024). Mortality occurred in 18 (40.9%) patients during the follow-up.

Conclusions

Percutaneous endoscopic Gastrostomy is both safe and effective in that it does not require surgical operation and it can be performed under surface anesthesia. The serum albumin level with patients who have undergone percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomyis an effective factor for survival.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy using the direct method for aerodigestive cancer patients

BACKGROUND

In esophageal or head and neck cancer patients, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) by the pull method has higher complication rates than in noncancer patients. An introducer method is considered suitable for these patients, however, complications associated with deflation or rupture of the balloon-anchoring system are reported.

AIM

To investigate the efficacy of a modified introducer method, called direct method, for aerodigestive cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between October 2007 and December 2010, direct-method PEG was performed in 160 patients with advanced-stage esophageal (59 patients) or head and neck (101 patients) cancer. Complications and postoperative course were retrospectively retrieved from charts.

RESULTS

An ultrathin endoscopy was used in 109 patients (72.7%), and 23 patients received previous endoscopic dilatation (14%) due to the stricture caused by the tumor. The success rate of tube placement was 98.8% (158/160). Major complications related to tube insertion, such as panperitonitis, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and postoperative pneumonia occurred in five patients (3.2%). One patient died for panperitonitis due to late-onset tube dislodgement. There were no cases of tube blockade and no metastases in the PEG site during the median follow-up period of 153 days.

CONCLUSION

This was the first report of direct-method PEG in a number of esophageal or head and neck cancer patients. This method is optimal for its high success rate, acceptable safety profile, and little risk of stomal metastasis.

New "introducer" PEG-gastropexy with T fasteners: a pilot study

CONTEXT: Enteral feeding is indicated for patients unable to maintain appropriate oral intake, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the most adequate long-term enteral access. Peristomal infections are the most common complications of PEG, occurring in up to 8% of patients, despite the use of prophylactic antibiotics. The "introducer" PEG-gastropexy technique avoids PEG tube passage through the oral cavity, preventing microorganisms' dislodgment to the peristomal site. OBJECTIVES: To compare the incidence of peristomal wound infection at 7-day post-procedure after conventional "pull" technique versus a new "introducer" PEG-gastropexy kit. Secondary outcomes included success rates, procedure time, and other complications. METHODS: Eighteen patients referred for PEG placement between June and December 2010 were randomly assigned to "pull" PEG with antibiotics or "introducer" PEG-gastropexy technique without antibiotics. RESULTS: Overall success rate for both methods was 100%, although mean procedure duration was higher in the "introducer" PEG-gastropexy group (12.6 versus 6.4 minutes, P = 0.0166). Infection scores were slightly higher in patients who underwent "pull" PEG with antibiotics compared with "introducer" PEG-gastropexy without antibiotics (1.33 ± 0.83 versus 0.75 ± 0.67, P = 0.29). CONCLUSION: Although procedure duration was longer in the "introducer" PEG-gastropexy, infection scores were marginally higher in the "pull" PEG technique.

Successful control of peristomal infection by introducer-type percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a retrospective historical control study

BACKGROUND

The techniques of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy are classified as the pull and introducer methods. Peristomal infection is the most common procedure-related complication in the pull method.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare procedure-related complications between the two methods and to assess the outcome of long-term use of the introducer method.

METHODS

Between January 1999 and November 2009, 116 patients received percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy at Seoul St. Mary's Hospital in Korea. Before June 2006, the pull method was used for all patients; since then, every patient had been treated using the introducer method. We compared outcomes and complications within 180 days of gastrostomy placement for the two methods.

RESULTS

The pull method was performed on 63 patients and the introducer method on 53 patients. The occurrence of peristomal infection within 30 days was significantly lower in the introducer method group than in the pull method group (1.9% vs. 36.5%, P = 0.001). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae were the major organisms isolated from the peristomal infection. The requirement for catheter reinsertion because of displacement, obstruction, or damage to the catheter between 30 and 180 days was significantly higher in the introducer method group than in the pull method group (40.5% vs. 0%, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest the superiority of the introducer method in terms of infection control. However, the balloon-type catheter is associated with problems such as balloon insufficiency in long-term use.

Enteral nutrition access devices

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but, in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such situations, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the ASGE Governing Board. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 for articles related to endoscopy in patients requiring enteral feeding access by using the keywords "endoscopy," "percutaneous," "gastrostomy," "jejunostomy," "nasogastric," "nasoenteric," "nasojejunal," "transnasal," "feeding tube," "enteric," and "button." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Novel approach to antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a new and simpler strategy of antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).

DESIGN

Single centre, two arm, randomised, controlled, double blind clinical trial.

SETTING

Endoscopy unit in Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, between 3 June 2005 and 31 October 2009.

PARTICIPANTS

234 patients with an indication for PEG who gave informed consent to participate.

INTERVENTION

A single 20 ml dose of the oral solution of sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim (also known as co-trimoxazole or Bactrim; F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland) deposited in the PEG catheter immediately after insertion. The control group received standard prophylaxis consisting of a single intravenous dose of 1.5 g cefuroxime (Zinacef; GlaxoSmithKline, London) administered before insertion of the PEG tube.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically evident wound infection within 14 days after insertion of the PEG catheter. Secondary outcomes were positive bacterial culture and blood tests (highly sensitive C reactive protein and white blood cell count). All randomised patients were included in an intention to treat analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 234 patients included in this study, 116 were randomly assigned to co-trimoxazole and 118 to cefuroxime. At follow-up 7-14 days after insertion of the PEG catheter, wound infection was found in 10 (8.6%) patients in the co-trimoxazole group and 14 (11.9%) in the cefuroxime group, which corresponds to a percentage point difference of -3.3% (95% confidence interval -10.9% to 4.5%). The per protocol analysis, which comprised 100 patients in each group, gave similar results-10% and 13% infection in the co-trimoxazole and cefuroxime groups, respectively (percentage point difference -3.0%, 95% CI -11.8% to 5.8%). Both these analyses indicate non-inferiority of co-trimoxazole compared with cefuroxime because the upper bounds of the confidence intervals are lower than the pre-determined non-inferiority margin of 15%. Analyses of the secondary outcomes supported this finding.

CONCLUSION

20 ml of co-trimoxazole solution deposited in a newly inserted PEG catheter is at least as effective as cefuroxime prophylaxis given intravenously before PEG at preventing wound infections in patients undergoing PEG. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18677736.

Airway infection predisposes to peristomal infection after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with high concordance between sputum and wound isolates

BACKGROUND

Peristomal infection is common after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. This study aims to evaluate the correlation between airway and peristomal infected pathogens.

METHODS

Before the procedure, sputum cultures were prospectively performed for the patients with airway symptoms. All the patients received prophylactic antibiotics. Once peristomal infection occurred, the wound cultures were obtained to analyze the antibiotic susceptibilities of the pathogens. The paired isolates, with concordance between sputum and wound cultures, were validated for their clone identity using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis.

RESULTS

One hundred twelve patients were enrolled, and 30 patients had peristomal infection. The 31 patients with airway pathogens had a 10-fold higher risk of peristomal infection than the other 81 without airway pathogens (95% CI, 3.85-26.4, p < 0.001). Among patients collected with paired isolates from wound and sputum, 85% had concordant microorganism species. In the paired concordant isolates, 94% had indistinguishable antibiogram, and nearly 90% were clonally identical in pulsed-field gel electrophoresis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with airway infection have an increased risk of peristomal infection after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Concerning the high concordance between infected wound and sputum isolates of such patients, the selection of appropriate prophylactic antibiotics could be individual to cover the microorganisms isolated from sputum.