Emh. Mathus-vliegen et al., Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy in psychomotor retarded subjects: A follow-up covering 106 patient years, J PED GASTR, 33(4), 2001, pp. 488-494
Citations number
24
Categorie Soggetti
Pediatrics,"Medical Research General Topics
Journal title
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC GASTROENTEROLOGY AND NUTRITION
Background: Whether psychomotor retarded persons should be treated by percu
taneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or by surgical gastrostomy combined wi
th an antireflux procedure is controversial. Therefore the authors investig
ated the feasibility of a PEG and enteral feeding in these patients.
Methods: Patients referred from specialized institutions for a PEG placemen
t were assessed extensively by a multidisciplinary team. When considered el
igible, age and general condition determined the choice of treatment under
general anesthesia (group 1) or conscious sedation (group 2). Patients were
followed up after 1 and 7 days, 4 and 12 weeks, and thereafter every 6 to
12 weeks. Data were collected prospectively over a period of 5 years until
gastrostomy removal, death, or arrival at the censory date, 6 months after
PEG placement. The endpoints were 1) to evaluate the procedure and its comp
lications; 2) to discover barriers that impeded adequate nutrition; and 3)
to explore the appropriateness of the choice of PEG or percutaneous endosco
pic gastrojejunostomy (PEJ).
Results: The procedure was successful in 95% of patients, in every patient
in group 1 (35/35; median age, 4.1 years) and in 20 of 23 patients (87%) in
group 2 (median age, 22.0 years). There were no procedure-related deaths a
nd no 30-day mortality. Major complications changed from procedure-related
problems in the short term (5.4%) to tube-related problems in the long-term
(24.1%). Nausea and vomiting interfered with adequate feeding mainly in yo
ung children, but dietary adjustments alleviated the symptoms and ensured a
n adequate intake. The choice of a PEG was incorrect in four patients: surg
ery was needed twice and two PEGS had to be converted into a PEJ. All seven
primarily indicated PEJs seemed justified and of temporary need in five.
Conclusions: In severely disabled patients, a PEG and adequate enteral nutr
ition is feasible in the setting of a multidisciplinary approach and protoc
ol-wise follow-up. Yet, anatomic deformities and restricted pulmonary funct
ion rendered the procedure more difficult. In cases with obvious aspiration
or gastroesophageal reflux, a PEJ combined with acid suppression and proki
netic drugs may be tried before surgery.