Article Text

PDF

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in a general hospital: prospective evaluation of indications, outcome, and randomised comparison of two tube designs.
  1. M Z Panos,
  2. H Reilly,
  3. A Moran,
  4. T Reilly,
  5. P J Wallis,
  6. R Wears,
  7. I M Chesner
  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital.

    Abstract

    The indications for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and patient outcome, were examined prospectively in the setting of a general hospital. In the course of 26 months, 76 patients underwent PEG (median age 62 years (range 18-99)) and were followed up for 6887 patient days. The median (range) duration of PEG feeding was 93 (3-785) days. The procedure was carried out for neurological indications in 76% of cases (stroke 51%) and 53% of patients were severely malnourished (body mass index < 17 kg/m2) at the time of referral. In 12 (16%) patients swallowing recovered and the PEG was removed after a median (range) of 55 days (20-150). Three (4%) deaths were related to PEG (one oesophageal perforation, one haemorrhage, and one aspiration pneumonia). One patient developed peritonism and ileus, which resolved with conservative treatment. Minor complications included local sepsis 3%, tube blockage 12%, and tube connector leak 5%. During seven days of observation, demands on nursing time for routine care of the PEG were the same as for nasogastric tube feeding, median (range) 21 (4-42) v 16 (4-40) min/day respectively, but in about half the latter cases the tube had to be replaced at least once. Over 15 months, 29 patients were randomised to receive a 1.9 mm inner, 2.9 mm (9F) outer diameter Fresenius and 27 a 3.0 mm inner, 4.0 mm (12F) outer diameter Bower polyurethane tube and were followed for 2920 and 2388 patient days respectively. There was no difference in the insertion time (median (range) 20 (10-45) v 24 (10-45) min respectively) or number of patients with complications (three v eight patients NS), although there were more minor mechanical problems (three v 12, p < 0.01) with the 12F tube. The internal anchoring device of the 12F tube allowed its non-endoscopic removal, a method applicable too 16% of cases. No tubes were removed because of blockage.

    Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.