-
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jun 2014Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the preferred route of feeding and nutritional support in patients with a functional gastrointestinal system who require... (Review)
Review
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the preferred route of feeding and nutritional support in patients with a functional gastrointestinal system who require long-term enteral nutrition. Besides its well-known advantages over parenteral nutrition, PEG offers superior access to the gastrointestinal system over surgical methods. Considering that nowadays PEG tube placement is one of the most common endoscopic procedures performed worldwide, knowing its indications and contraindications is of paramount importance in current medicine. PEG tubes are sometimes placed inappropriately in patients unable to tolerate adequate oral intake because of incorrect and unrealistic understanding of their indications and what they can accomplish. Broadly, the two main indications of PEG tube placement are enteral feeding and stomach decompression. On the other hand, distal enteral obstruction, severe uncorrectable coagulopathy and hemodynamic instability constitute the main absolute contraindications for PEG tube placement in hospitalized patients. Although generally considered to be a safe procedure, there is the potential for both minor and major complications. Awareness of these potential complications, as well as understanding routine aftercare of the catheter, can improve the quality of care for patients with a PEG tube. These complications can generally be classified into three major categories: endoscopic technical difficulties, PEG procedure-related complications and late complications associated with PEG tube use and wound care. In this review we describe a variety of minor and major tube-related complications as well as strategies for their management and avoidance. Different methods of percutaneous PEG tube placement into the stomach have been described in the literature with the "pull" technique being the most common method. In the last section of this review, the reader is presented with a brief discussion of these procedures, techniques and related issues. Despite the mentioned PEG tube placement complications, this procedure has gained worldwide popularity as a safe enteral access for nutrition in patients with a functional gastrointestinal system.
Topics: Device Removal; Enteral Nutrition; Equipment Design; Gastroscopy; Gastrostomy; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24976711
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i24.7739 -
BMJ Open Gastroenterology Jul 2022Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) was developed by Ponsky-Gauderer in the early 1980s. These tubes are placed through the abdominal wall mainly to administer... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) was developed by Ponsky-Gauderer in the early 1980s. These tubes are placed through the abdominal wall mainly to administer fluids, drugs and/or enteral nutrition but can also be used for drainage or decompression. The tubes consist of an internal and external retention device. It is a generally safe technique but major or minor complications may arise during and after tube placement.
METHOD
A narrative review of the literature investigating minor complications after PEG placement.
RESULTS
This review was written from a clinical viewpoint focusing on prevention and management of minor complications and documented with real cases from more than 21 years of clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS
Depending on the literature the incidence of minor complications after gastrostomy placement can be high. To decrease associated morbidity, prevention, early recognition and popper management of these complications are important.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Gastrostomy
PubMed: 35851280
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2022-000975 -
Revista Espanola de Enfermedades... Dec 2014Numerous disorders impairing or diminishing a patient's ability to swallow may benefit from a PEG tube placement. This is considered the elective feeding technique if a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Numerous disorders impairing or diminishing a patient's ability to swallow may benefit from a PEG tube placement. This is considered the elective feeding technique if a functional digestive system is present.
METHODS
A PubMed-based search restricted to the English literature from the last 20 years was conducted. References in the results were also reviewed to identify potential sources of information.
RESULTS
PEG feeding has consistently demonstrated to be more effective and safe than nasogastric tube feeding, having also replaced surgical and radiological gastrostomy techniques for long term feeding. PEG is considered a minimally invasive procedure to ensure an adequate source for enteral nutrition in institutionalized and at home patients. Acute and chronic conditions associated with risk of malnutrition and dysphagia benefit from PEG placement: Beyond degenerative neuro-muscular disorders, an increasing body of evidence supports the advantages of PEG tubes in patients with head and neck cancer and in a wide range of situations in pediatric settings.The safety of PEG placement under antithrombotic medication is discussed. While antibiotic prophylaxis reduces peristomal wound infection rates, co-trimoxazole solutions administered through a newly inserted catheter constitutes an alternative to intravenous antibiotics. Early feeding (3-6 hours) after PEG placement firmly supports on safety evidences, additionally resulting in reduced costs and hospital stays. Complications of PEG are rare and the majority prevented with appropriated nursing cares.
CONCLUSIONS
PEG feeding provides the most valuable access for nutrition in patients with a functional gastrointestinal system. Its high effectiveness, safety and reduced cost underlie increasing worldwide popularity.
Topics: Endoscopy; Gastrostomy; Humans; Postoperative Care; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 25544410
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its prolonged use can lead to complications such as lesions to the nasal wing, chronic sinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia. Another method of infusion, percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG), is generally used when there is a need for enteral nutrition for a longer time period. There is a high demand for PEG in patients with swallowing disorders, although there is no consistent evidence about its effectiveness and safety as compared to NGT.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PEG compared with NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception to January 2014, and contacted the main authors in the subject area. There was no language restriction in the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomised controlled trials comparing PEG versus NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances or dysphagia and indications for nutritional support, with any underlying diseases. The primary outcome was intervention failure (e.g. feeding interruption, blocking or leakage of the tube, no adherence to treatment).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), respectively with the random-effects statistical model and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assumed statistical heterogeneity when I² > 50%.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 randomised controlled studies with 735 participants which produced 16 meta-analyses of outcome data. Meta-analysis indicated that the primary outcome of intervention failure, occurred in lower proportion of participants with PEG compared to NGT (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59, eight studies, 408 participants, low quality evidence) and this difference was statistically significant. For this outcome, we also subgrouped the studies by endoscopic gastrostomy technique into pull, and push and not reported. We observed a significant difference favouring PEG in the pull subgroup (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35, three studies, 90 participants). Thepush subgroup contained only one clinical trial and the result favoured PEG (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.74, one study, 33 participants) techniques. We found no statistically significant difference in cases where the technique was not reported (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.44, four studies, 285 participants).There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.28, 644 participants, nine studies, very low quality evidence), overall reports of any adverse event at any follow-up time point (ITT analysis, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.34), 597 participants, 6 studies, moderate quality evidence), specific adverse events including pneumonia (aspiration) (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.06, 645 participants, seven studies, low quality evidence), or for the meta- analyses of the secondary outcome of nutritional status including weight change from baseline, and mid-arm circumference at endpoint, although there was evidence in favour of PEG for meta-analyses of mid-arm circumference change from baseline (MD 1.16, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.31, 115 participants, two studies), and levels of serum albumin were higher in the PEG group (MD 6.03, 95% CI 2.31 to 9.74, 107 participants).For meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of time on enteral nutrition, there was no statistically significant difference (MD 14.48, 95% CI -2.74 to 31.71; 119 participants, two studies). For meta-analyses of quality of life measures (EuroQol) outcomes in two studies with 133 participants, for inconvenience (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), discomfort (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), altered body image (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18; P = 0.001) and social activities (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18) the intervention favoured PEG, that is, fewer participants found the intervention of PEG to be inconvenient, uncomfortable or interfered with social activities. However, there were no significant differences between the groups for pain, ease of learning to use, or the secondary outcome of length of hospital stay (two studies, 381 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
PEG was associated with a lower probability of intervention failure, suggesting the endoscopic procedure may be more effective and safe compared with NGT. There is no significant difference in mortality rates between comparison groups, or in adverse events, including pneumonia related to aspiration. Future studies should include details of participant demographics including underlying disease, age and gender, and the gastrostomy technique.
Topics: Adult; Deglutition Disorders; Enteral Nutrition; Gastrostomy; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Malnutrition; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 25997528
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008096.pub4 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology May 2020Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is an established method to provide nutrition to patients with restricted oral uptake of fluids and calories. Here, we review the... (Review)
Review
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is an established method to provide nutrition to patients with restricted oral uptake of fluids and calories. Here, we review the methods, indications and complications of this procedure. While gastrostomy can be safely and easily performed during gastroscopy, the right patients and timing for this intervention are not always chosen. Especially in patients with dementia, the indication for and timing of gastrostomies are often improper. In this patient group, clear data for enteral nutrition are lacking; however, some evidence suggests that patients with advanced dementia do not benefit, whereas patients with mild to moderate dementia might benefit from early enteral nutrition. Additionally, other patient groups with temporary or permanent restriction of oral uptake might be a useful target population for early enteral nutrition to maintain mobilization and muscle strength. We plead for a coordinated study program for these patient groups to identify suitable patients and the best timing for tube implantation.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Gastroscopy; Gastrostomy; Humans; Patient Selection; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Time Factors; Time-to-Treatment
PubMed: 32523304
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i20.2464 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver... Dec 2007Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has become the modality of choice for providing enteral access to patients who require long-term enteral nutrition. Although... (Review)
Review
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has become the modality of choice for providing enteral access to patients who require long-term enteral nutrition. Although generally considered safe, PEG tube placement can be associated with many potential complications. This review describes a variety of PEG tube related complications as well as strategies for complication avoidance. In addition, the reader is presented with a brief discussion of procedures, techniques, alternatives to PEG tubes, and related issues. Special topics covered in this review include PEG tube placement following previous surgery and PEG tube use in pregnancy.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Gastroscopy; Gastrostomy; Humans; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 18193123
DOI: No ID Found -
The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society Aug 2017Malnutrition can adversely affect physical and psychological function, influencing both morbidity and mortality. Despite the prevalence of malnutrition and its... (Review)
Review
Malnutrition can adversely affect physical and psychological function, influencing both morbidity and mortality. Despite the prevalence of malnutrition and its associated health and economic costs, malnutrition remains under-detected and under-treated in differing healthcare settings. For a subgroup of malnourished individuals, a gastrostomy (a feeding tube placed directly into the stomach) may be required to provide long-term nutritional support. In this review we explore the spectrum and consequences of malnutrition in differing healthcare settings. We then specifically review gastrostomies as a method of providing nutritional support. The review highlights the origins of gastrostomies, and discusses how endoscopic and radiological advances have culminated in an increased demand and placement of gastrostomy feeding tubes. Several studies have raised concerns about the benefits derived following this intervention and also about the patients selected to undergo this procedure. These studies are discussed in detail in this review, alongside suggestions for future research to help better delineate those who will benefit most from this intervention, and improve understanding about how gastrostomies influence nutritional outcomes.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Congresses as Topic; Delayed Diagnosis; Dementia; Dietetics; Enteral Nutrition; Gastrostomy; Humans; Length of Stay; Malnutrition; Neurodegenerative Diseases; Nutrition Assessment; Nutritional Sciences; Oropharyngeal Neoplasms; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prognosis; Societies, Scientific; Stroke
PubMed: 27916005
DOI: 10.1017/S0029665116002895 -
Nutrition in Clinical Practice :... Dec 2021Nutrition support is essential in children with cancer, including those undergoing bone marrow transplant (BMT), to reduce the risk of malnutrition and associated... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nutrition support is essential in children with cancer, including those undergoing bone marrow transplant (BMT), to reduce the risk of malnutrition and associated deleterious outcomes. Enteral nutrition is more commonly provided via nasogastric than gastrostomy tubes because of safety concerns with the latter in immunocompromised children. This systematic review investigated the incidence and type of complications and outcomes in pediatric cancer patients fed by gastrostomy.
METHODS
Databases were searched for randomized and observational studies investigating the use of any gastrostomy device in children aged <18 years with any cancer diagnosis, including those undergoing BMT. Five cohort and 11 case series studies were included. Owing to clinical heterogeneity, meta-analyses were not performed.
RESULTS
Quality of evidence varied, with five studies judged at serious risk of bias and poor quality; however, the remaining 11 were considered to range from moderate to good quality. Across studies, 54.6% of children developed one or more complications, of which 76.6% were classified as minor, 23.4% major. The most frequent complications included inflammation (52% of episodes), infection (42.1%), leakage (22.3%), and granuloma (21%). Evidence regarding infection rates in cancer/BMT patients compared with other disease states was inconclusive. Gastrostomy feeding was associated with improvement or stabilization of nutrition status in 77%-92.7% of children.
CONCLUSION
Gastrostomy feeding in this population is relatively safe and effective in stabilizing or improving nutrition status throughout treatment. Complications are frequent but mostly minor. Placement requires careful consideration of the complications, benefits, nutrition risk and status at diagnosis, and quality of life.
Topics: Bone Marrow Transplantation; Child; Gastrostomy; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Neoplasms; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34245471
DOI: 10.1002/ncp.10724 -
Endoscopy Feb 2021ESGE recommends the "pull" technique as the standard method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE...
ESGE recommends the "pull" technique as the standard method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the direct percutaneous introducer ("push") technique for PEG placement in cases where the "pull" method is contraindicated, for example in severe esophageal stenosis or in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) or esophageal cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the intravenous administration of a prophylactic single dose of a beta-lactam antibiotic (or appropriate alternative antibiotic, in the case of allergy) to decrease the risk of post-procedural wound infection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends that inadvertent insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) into the respiratory tract should be considered a serious but avoidable adverse event (AE).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that each institution should have a dedicated protocol to confirm correct positioning of NGTs placed "blindly" at the patient's bedside; this should include: radiography, pH testing of the aspirate, and end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring, but not auscultation alone.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends confirmation of correct NGT placement by radiography in high-risk patients (intensive care unit [ICU] patients or those with altered consciousness or absent gag/cough reflex).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that EN may be started within 3 - 4 hours after uncomplicated placement of a PEG or PEG-J.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends that daily tube mobilization (pushing inward) along with a loose position of the external PEG bumper (1 - 2 cm from the abdominal wall) could mitigate the risk of development of buried bumper syndrome.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
Topics: Adult; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Enteral Nutrition; Gastrostomy; Humans
PubMed: 33348410
DOI: 10.1055/a-1331-8080 -
The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society Feb 2021Nutrition support involves the use of oral supplements, enteral tube feeding or parenteral nutrition. These interventions are considered when oral intake alone fails to... (Review)
Review
Nutrition support involves the use of oral supplements, enteral tube feeding or parenteral nutrition. These interventions are considered when oral intake alone fails to meet nutritional requirements. Special diets and oral supplements are usually the first approach to managing malnutrition; however, their role becomes limited when oral intake is restricted or if swallowing is unsafe. Enteral tube feeding or parenteral nutrition are alternative means of providing nutrition support for this select group of patients. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding was introduced into clinical practice in 1980. It describes a feeding tube placed directly into the stomach under endoscopic guidance. It is an established means of providing enteral nutrition to those who have functionally normal gastrointestinal tracts, but who cannot meet their nutritional requirements due to inadequate oral intake. The intervention is usually reserved when nutritional intake is likely to be inadequate for more than 4-6 weeks. Although the benefits of PEG have been shown for a select group of patients, there currently exists concerns about the increasing frequency of this intervention, and also uncertainty about the long-term benefits for certain patients. The 2004 UK National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death report emphasised this concern, with almost a fifth of PEG being undertaken for futile indications that negatively influenced morbidity and mortality. The present review paper discusses the indications for, controversies surrounding and complications of gastrostomy feeding and provides practical advice on optimising patient selection for this intervention.
Topics: Contraindications, Procedure; Enteral Nutrition; Gastrostomy; Humans; Malnutrition; Nutritional Requirements; Patient Selection; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32441238
DOI: 10.1017/S002966512000703X