PERCUTANEOUS ENDOSCOPIC GASTROSTOMY IN A GENERAL-HOSPITAL - PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF INDICATIONS, OUTCOME, AND RANDOMIZED COMPARISON OF 2 TUBE DESIGNS
Mz. Panos et al., PERCUTANEOUS ENDOSCOPIC GASTROSTOMY IN A GENERAL-HOSPITAL - PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF INDICATIONS, OUTCOME, AND RANDOMIZED COMPARISON OF 2 TUBE DESIGNS, Gut, 35(11), 1994, pp. 1551-1556
The indications for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and pati
ent outcome, were examined prospectively in the setting of a general h
ospital. In the course of 26 months, 76 patients underwent PEG (median
age 62 years (range 18-99)) and were followed up for 6887 patient day
s. The median (range) duration of PEG feeding was 93 (3-785) days. The
procedure was carried out for neurological indications in 76% of case
s (stroke 51%) and 53% of patients were severely malnourished (body ma
ss index < 17 kg/m(2)) at the time of referral. In 12 (16%) patients s
wallowing recovered and the PEG was removed after a median (range) of
55 days (20-150). Three (4%) deaths were related to PEG (one oesophage
al perforation, one haemorrhage, and one aspiration pneumonia). One pa
tient developed peritonism and ileus, which resolved with conservative
treatment. Minor complications included local sepsis 3%, tube blockag
e 12%, and tube connector leak 5%. During seven days of observation, d
emands on nursing time for routine care of the PEG were the same as fo
r nasogastric tube feeding, median (range) 21 (4-42) v 16 (4-40) min/d
ay respectively, but in about half the latter cases the tube had to be
replaced at least once. Over 15 months, 29 patients were randomised t
o 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 an
d 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 (thr
ee v eight patients NS), although there were more minor mechanical pro
blems (three v 12, p<0.01) with the 12F tube. The internal anchoring d
evice of the 12F tube allowed its non-endoscopic removal, a method app
licable to 16% of cases. No tubes were removed because of blockage.