Surgically placed gastro-jejunostomy tubes have fewer complications compared to feeding jejunostomy tubes

Safety and durability of PEG-J: a single-centre experience

INTRODUCTION

Although percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension (PEG-J) is currently indicated in a variety of conditions, limited data are available regarding its safety and the best timing for its replacement. We herein describe a single-centre cohort of patients who underwent PEG-J placement or replacement to assess the short- and long-term safety of the procedure.

METHODS

Demographic and procedure-related data regarding all patients undergoing a PEG-J procedure between March 2010 and 2020, either first placement or any replacement, at the Endoscopy Unit of a University Hospital in Northern Italy (IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy), were retrospectively collected. Data were collected until last available follow-up.

RESULTS

We included 73 patients (mean age 70 ± 9.7, 60.3% female) who underwent a PEG-J procedure. Data on a total of 215 procedures were gathered with a median follow up time of 21 months (IQR 9.3-39.5). No immediate adverse events (AEs) were reported. Short-term (within 30 days) AEs, including jejunal extension dislocations, accidental removal, obstruction and kinking occurred in 12 patients (5.6% of the total procedures), whilst long-term AEs (obstruction, tube malfunctions, inner tube dislocation, pyloric ulcer, hypergranulation tissue, wear, buried bumper syndrome and accidental removal) were reported in 40 patients. The risk of developing an AE was not reduced if tube replacement was performed electively. The median duration of the PEG-J before replacement was 12 months (IQR 6-16 months).

CONCLUSION

PEG-J placement and replacement are safe procedures. Although PEG-J durability is variable an elective procedure might be indicated to reduce urgent replacements.

Long-Term PEG-J Tube Safety in Patients With Advanced Parkinson's Disease

OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of this study were to present procedure- and device-associated adverse events (AEs) identified with long-term drug delivery via percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy (PEG-J). Levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG, also known in US as carbidopa-levodopa enteral suspension, CLES) is continuously infused directly to the proximal small intestine via PEG-J in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease (PD) to overcome slow and erratic gastric emptying and treat motor fluctuations that are not adequately controlled by oral or other pharmacological therapy.

METHODS:

An independent adjudication committee of three experienced (>25 years each) gastroenterologists reviewed gastrointestinal procedure- and device-associated AEs reported for PD patients (total n=395) enrolled in phase 3 LCIG studies. The rate, clinical significance, and causality of the procedure/device events were determined.

RESULTS:

The patient median exposure to PEG-J at the data cutoff was 480 days. Procedure- and device-associated serious AEs (SAEs) occurred in 67 (17%) patients. A total of 42% of SAEs occurred during the first 4 weeks following PEG-J placement. SAEs of major clinical significance with the highest procedural incidence were peritonitis (1.5%), pneumonia (1.5%), and abdominal pain (1.3%). The most common non-serious procedure- and device-associated AEs were abdominal pain (31%), post-operative wound infection (20%), and procedural pain (23%). In all, 17 (4.3%) patients discontinued treatment owing to an AE.

CONCLUSIONS:

In conclusion, incidences of PEG-J AEs with the LCIG delivery system and PEG-J longevity were compared favorably with ranges described in the PEG/PEG-J literature. A low discontinuation rate in this study suggests acceptable procedural outcomes and AE rates in PD patients treated with this PEG-J drug delivery system.

Small bowel endoscopic enteral access

The use of small bowel access for small intestinal delivery of enteral nutrition is becoming more common. Patients at risk for gastric regurgitation and aspiration, gastric intolerance, and pancreatitis are some of the classic patient groups for which small bowel feedings may be necessary. The endoscopist should have command of all forms of endoscopic small bowel enteral access, including nasojejunal tube placement, percutaneous gastro/jejunostomy, and direct percutaneous jejunostomy. Knowledge of not only the procedure techniques, but also the potential complications, is imperative to achieving good clinical outcomes.

Randomized clinical trial comparing feeding jejunostomy with nasoduodenal tube placement in patients undergoing oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Feeding jejunostomy is frequently performed in patients undergoing oesophageal surgery, but can lead to serious complications. This prospective randomized trial compared the efficacy and complications of feeding jejunostomy with those of nasoduodenal tube feeding in oesophageal surgery.

METHODS

Over an 18-month period, 150 consecutive patients undergoing oesophageal resection were randomized to participate in the trial. Enteral access was by jejunostomy in 79 patients and by nasoduodenal tube in 71. Enteral feeding was started on the first day after surgery.

RESULTS

Full enteral feeding took 3 days to be established in both groups. Minor catheter-related complications occurred in 28 patients (35 per cent) in the jejunostomy group, and in 21 (30 per cent) in the nasoduodenal group (P = 0.488). One patient had jejunostomy leakage that required reoperation. Enteral nutrition was given for a median of 11 days in the jejunostomy group and for 10 days in the nasoduodenal group. Nine patients who had a jejunostomy and five with a nasoduodenal tube did not tolerate full enteral feeding (P = 0.411).

CONCLUSION

Nasoduodenal tube feeding is safe and efficient after oesophageal resection.

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.

[Surgical access routes in enteral nutrition]

There are many known routes of access to the digestive tract for enteral nutrition (EN) and significant advances have been made in recent years. Administration techniques and nutritional products have also improved. Placement of these systems may be temporary or permanent. Indications often overlap. If feasible, the enteral route is preferred over the parenteral route. When enteral nutrition will last < or = 6 weeks, nasoenteral tubes are the best option. In NE > or = 6 weeks, enterostomy tubes are indicated and the procedure of choice is percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Postpyloric access should be considered in patients with a high risk of aspiration. Finally, needle catheter jejunostomy during interventions in the upper gastrointestinal tract is the ideal technique for initiating early EN. All these techniques continue to be valid and the choice of procedure will be determined by the patient's clinical status and the experience of the team. The present article is divided into two parts. In the first part, surgical access techniques for EN, their indications and contraindications and the most frequent complications related to the technique, the care of the stoma and the intubation material are analyzed. In the second part, we report data from our personal experience of the various techniques we have performed and describe the patients, results and complications. A total of 287 procedures were performed: 48 surgical gastrostomies, 40 using the technique of Fontan or Stamm, and 8 Janeway gastrostomies; 27 of these procedures were permanent. There were 169 jejunostomy catheters, with a mean dwelling time of 29.05 +/- 21.9 days, and 72 double lumen nasojejunal tubes.

Enteral access in home care

Enteral nutrition is the delivery of nutrients through the gastrointestinal tract. For those patients who cannot or will not swallow, an enteral access device (EAD) is required. Some of these devices can be passed through the oral or nasal cavity into the stomach or small bowel. Alternatively, the devices can be percutaneously placed by an endoscopist or a radiologist into the stomach or small bowel. Knowledge of the appropriate use of these devices, the appropriate maintenance management of these devices, and the appropriate treatment of EAD-related complications is essential for the clinician to understand in order to provide effective nutrition therapy.

Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Enteral feeding devices have gained popularity since the beneficial effects of enteral nutrition have been clarified. Laparoscopic placement of a feeding jejunostomy is the most recently described enteric access route. In order to classify current surgical techniques and assess evidence on safety of laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy, a systematic review was performed.

METHODS

The electronic databases Medline, Cochrane, and Embase were searched. Reference lists were checked and requests for additional or unpublished data were sent to authors. Outcome measures were surgical technique and catheter-related complications.

RESULTS

Enteral access for feeding purposes can be effectively achieved by laparoscopic jejunostomy. Laparoscopic jejunostomy can be accomplished by either total laparoscopic or laparoscopic-aided techniques. The most experience was obtained with total laparoscopic placement. Which technique to apply should depend on the surgeon's expertise. Conversion rate is similar to other laparoscopic procedures. Complications can be serious and therefore strict patient selection should be warranted.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy is a viable method to obtain enteral access with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

Gastric decompression and enteral feeding through a double-lumen gastrojejunostomy tube improves outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of inserting a double-lumen gastrojejunostomy tube (GJT) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and to evaluate associated outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Gastroparesis is a frequent postoperative event following PD. This often necessitates prolonged gastric decompression and nutritional support. A double-lumen GJT may be particularly useful in this situation: gastric decompression may be achieved through the gastric port without a nasogastric tube; enteral feeding may be administered through the jejunal port.

METHODS

Thirty-six patients with periampullary tumors were randomized at the time of PD to insertion of GJT or to the routine care of the operating surgeon. Outcomes, including length of stay, complications, and costs, were followed prospectively.

RESULTS

The 2 groups had similar characteristics. Prolonged gastroparesis occurred in 4 controls (25%) and in none of the patients who had a GJT (P = 0.03). Complication rates were similar in each group. Mean postoperative length of stay was significantly longer in controls compared with patients who had a GJT (15.8 +/- 7.8 days versus 11.5 +/- 2.9 days, respectively; P = 0.01). Hospital charges were 82,151 +/- 56,632 dollars in controls and 52,589 +/- 15,964 dollars in the GJT group (P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing PD, insertion of a GJT is safe. Moreover, insertion of a GJT improves average length of stay. At the time of resection of periampullary tumors, GJT insertion should be considered, especially given this is a patient population in which weight loss and cachexia are frequent.