Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in a surgical training program

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1:  ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2:  ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4:  Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Gastrostomy Tube Placement Outcomes: Comparison of Surgical, Endoscopic, and Laparoscopic Methods

BACKGROUND

Advances in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and laparoscopic (LAP) techniques now allow for less invasive placement of gastrostomy tubes. This study compared morbidities and feeding outcomes of these procedures with standard surgical (OPEN) insertion.

METHODS

Gastrostomy tubes placed in the operating room by the PEG, LAP, and OPEN methods were compared for insertion times, tube insertion and maintenance complications, enteral feeding complications, and feeding start days. Patients with concomitant intra-abdominal procedures were excluded. Patients were followed for 6 days after tube placement.

RESULTS

A total of 91 catheters (PEG = 23, LAP = 39, OPEN = 29) were inserted in the operating room for indications of ventilator-dependent respiratory failure (45), dysphagia (30), head and neck cancer (9), and decreased mental status (7). No patients were fed on the day of the procedure. Insertion times were significantly longer (p < .05) in the OPEN technique (68 minutes) vs LAP (48 minutes) and PEG (30 minutes). Insertion complications occurred in the LAP and PEG cohorts (3 failed LAP, 1 failed PEG), and maintenance complications were higher in the LAP group, including 1 episode each of cellulitis, bleeding, and serous drainage. Twenty enteral feeding complications in 17 patients occurred in all groups (9 in LAP vs 6 in PEG and 5 in OPEN), and included emesis (6), high residual (5), diarrhea (3), ileus (3), nausea (2), and pain after feeding (1). Overall complications were significantly lower in the PEG (7) and OPEN (5) groups compared with the LAP group (15). Feeding start day was significantly delayed in the OPEN technique (2.1 days vs 1.7 in PEG and 1.5 in LAP); however, no difference was found in days to goal among groups (4.4-4.8 days).

CONCLUSIONS

PEG should be the procedure of choice for placement of gastrostomy tubes. If PEG is contraindicated, then OPEN technique may be best due to fewer complications, although insertion time is longer than the LAP technique.

Safety and feasibility of interventional pulmonologists performing bedside percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement

BACKGROUND

Prior to the 1980s, permanent feeding tube placement was limited to an open surgical procedure until Gauderer and colleagues described the safe placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. This procedure has since expanded beyond the realm of surgeons to include gastroenterologists, thoracic surgeons, and interventional radiologists. In some academic centers, interventional pulmonologists (IPs) also perform this procedure. We describe the safety and feasibility of PEG tube placement by IPs in a critically ill population.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of patients in a medical ICU undergoing PEG tube placement from 2003 to 2007 at a tertiary-care center were reviewed. Inclusion criteria included all PEG tube insertions performed or attempted by the IP team. Data were collected on mortality, PEG tube removal rate, total number of days with PEG tube, and complication rates. Follow-up included hospital length of stay and phone contact after discharge. Procedural and long-term PEG-related complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients were studied. PEG tube insertion was completed successfully in 70 (97.2%), with follow-up data in 69 of these 70. Thirty-day mortality was 11.7%. No deaths or immediate complications were attributed to PEG tube placement. PEG tube removal occurred in 27 patients, with a median time to removal of 76 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Bedside PEG tube placement can be performed safely and effectively by trained IPs. Because percutaneous tracheostomy is currently performed by IPs, the ability to place both PEG and tracheostomy tubes at the same time has the potential for decreased costs, anesthesia exposure, procedural times, ventilator times, and ICU days.

Abdominal plain film before gastrostomy tube placement to predict success of percutaneous endoscopic procedure

OBJECTIVES

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube feeding is a convenient method for children requiring long-term enteral nutrition. Preoperative fitness of the majority of pediatric PEG candidates is graded as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥ III, indicating increased risk for peri- and postoperative morbidity. The success rate of endoscopic insertion is high, but variations in the anatomy may lead to failure of PEG placement and repeated exposure to anesthesia for surgical gastrostomy. We evaluated the efficiency of using abdominal plain film with gastric insufflation in the preparatory phase to predict a successful PEG insertion and avoid rescheduling.

METHODS

A single-center cohort of candidates for PEG underwent abdominal plain film with gastric insufflation in the preparatory phase before tube insertion. The x-ray film was considered normal when the stomach projected distal to the costal margin. Primary endpoint was the success rate of PEG insertion. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with PEG insertion failure.

RESULTS

A total of 303 candidates for PEG underwent abdominal plain film (age range 0.3-18.1 years). PEG tube insertion succeeded in 287 cases (95%). In case of an abnormal abdominal film, the probability of successful PEG insertion dropped to 67% (95% confidence interval 46%-87%). In a multivariate logistic regression model, significant predictors for PEG insertion failure were spinal deformities (odds ratio [OR] 12.1), previous abdominal surgery (OR 8.5), neurological impairment (OR 4.1), and abnormal plain abdominal film (OR 10.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of the gastric anatomy by abdominal plain film in PEG candidates with spinal deformities, previous abdominal surgery, or neurological impairment may help to identify children with a high likelihood of PEG insertion failure. This strategy enables the endoscopist to notify the surgeon in advance for a potential conversion and avoids repeated exposure to anesthesia.

Enteral nutrition via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nutritional status of patients: five-year prospective study

BACKGROUND

Since it was described in 1980, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has been a widely used method for insertion of a gastrostomy tube in patients who are unable to swallow or maintain adequate nutrition. The aim of the present paper was to determine the complications of PEG insertion and to study pre- and post-procedural nutritional status.

METHODS

During the period of March 1999-September 2004, placement of PEG tube was performed in 85 patients (22 women and 63 men). Patient nutritional status was assessed before and after PEG insertion via anthropometric measurements.

RESULTS

The most frequent indication for PEG insertion was neurological disorders (65.9%). Thirty patients died due to primary disease and two patients due to PEG-related complications within 5 years. There were 14 early complications in 10 patients (15.2%; <30 days), and 18 late complications in 12 patients (19.6%). Total mortality was 37.6%. All complications other than four were minor. Before PEG insertion, patients were assessed with subjective global assessment and it was determined that 43.2% of them had severe, and 41.9% of them had mild malnutrition. After PEG insertion, significant improvements on patient nutrition levels was observed.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is a minimally invasive gastrostomy method with low morbidity and mortality rates, is easy to follow up and easy to replace when clogged.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: the preferred method of elective feeding tube placement in trauma patients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether gastric feeding tubes placed by the percutaneous endoscopic route resulted in fewer and less severe complications than open surgical gastrostomy (SG).

METHODS

Charts for all trauma patients admitted 1/94 to 12/98, which had an electively placed feeding tube, were individually reviewed. All tube-related complications were recorded. Of 8119 patients screened, 158 (1.9%) met inclusion criteria. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies (PEGs) were placed in 95 (60.1%) and surgical gastrostomies in 63 (39.9%). Most patients (79.1%) had AIS 3 or greater head or spinal cord injury as the primary diagnosis leading to tube placement.

RESULTS

Overall, SG patients were 5.4 times more likely than PEG patients to have a complication from their gastrostomy tube (95% CI, 2.1-13.8). They were 2.6 times more likely to have a major complication (internal leakage, dehiscence, peritonitis, and fistula), and 5.5 times more likely to have a minor complication (unplanned removal, dislodgment, external leak, skin infection, and nonfunction). The groups did not differ on ISS, ICU LOS, total LOS, or mortality (p > 0.05). Overall, a total of 39 individual complications related to tube placement were noted in 26 separate patients (PEG, 7; SG, 19). All four of the major complications requiring operative intervention were in the SG group. There were 31 minor complications, 8 in the PEG group and 27 in the SG group. Mean total charges for placement were also significantly lower in the PEG group than the SG group ($1271 vs. $2761, p < 0.001)

CONCLUSION

Gastrostomy tubes placed via the percutaneous endoscopic route had a significantly lower complication rate than surgically placed tubes. In addition, the charges incurred for their placement were also significantly less. Based on the findings of this study, PEG should be considered as the method of choice for gastric feeding tube placement for trauma patients who do not have specific contraindications to the procedure.

Minimally invasive surgery. Bedside tracheostomy and gastrostomy

Minimally invasive surgical techniques have gathered tremendous momentum. Most patient benefit is realized in the ambulatory setting. Smaller incisions result in less pain and earlier return to activities. Critically ill patients typically do not benefit from minimally invasive techniques in this manner; however, they do benefit from other aspects of minimally invasive tracheostomy and gastrostomy. Small tracheostomy wounds are associated with reduced wound problems (infection and breakdown). The small stab wounds of minimally invasive gastrostomy are associated with less pain and with an absence of fascial dehiscence. Furthermore, because these procedures are performed easily and safely at the bedside, transport and operating room costs are avoided. Although these procedures are minimally invasive, they are major procedures. Devastating complications can become life-threatening. Attention to detail is required to avoid or respond promptly to complications. In this way, patients receive maximal benefit at minimal risk.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy reduces total hospital costs in head-injured patients

BACKGROUND

Gastrostomies provide reliable long-term enteral access in patients with traumatic brain injuries. The impact of technique of gastrostomy on total hospital cost is not known.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who sustained head trauma and required gastrostomies for long-term enteral access between 1 July 1990 and 1 July 1996 was performed.

RESULTS

The patients who received percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies (PEG) were similar to patients who received Stamm gastrostomies (OPEN) with respect to age, injury severity score, mechanism of injury, associated injuries, complication rates, and deaths. Total hospital costs ($ x 10(3)) were lower for patients who had PEGs placed in the intensive care unit (78.2 +/- 37.4) or endoscopy suite (71.9 +/- 37.7) compared with PEGs placed in the operating room (122.4 +/- 75.7) or OPEN gastrostomies (119.8 +/- 65.1).

CONCLUSIONS

In head-injured patients, PEGs are a reliable method of obtaining long-term enteral access with a complication rate equivalent to Stamm gastrostomies. If performed in either the intensive care unit or the endoscopy suite, PEGs are associated with significantly reduced total hospital costs.