Safety and effectiveness of radiologic and endoscopic percutaneous gastrostomy placement: A randomized study.

Gastrostomy tubes placed radiologically, endoscopically or surgically facilitate long-term home enteral nutrition (HEN). Patient-specific clinical factors may affect placement techniques, confounding direct comparisons between radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) outcomes. This study sought to evaluate the differences in clinical outcomes in patients undergoing gastrostomy tube placement by interventional radiologists or gastroenterologists. A single-center prospective trial randomizing patients initiating HEN to RIG or PEG was conducted between March 2018 and June 2021. Patients were followed until the time of gastrostomy removal or until 9 months after tube placement. Tracked complications included peritonitis, abscess, bleeding, bowel perforation, and tube occlusion, malposition, or damage. Periprocedural pain rating and quality of life (QoL) surveys were collected. Forty-two patients were randomized to RIG or PEG. Twenty patients underwent RIG (mean age, 63.0 ± 11.7 years; 85% male; 95% with head and neck cancer) and 22 patients underwent PEG (mean age, 66.3 ± 10.9 years; 81.8% male; 90.9% with head and neck cancer). RIG and PEG groups had 4.18 ± 5.49 and 2.80 ± 5.82 complications per 1000 HEN days, respectively (P = 0.357). The most frequent complications were tube malposition and abscess formation for the RIG and PEG groups, respectively. No major complications occurred in either group. There was no difference in the average of pain ratings in all pain inventory components across both groups. Both groups reported improvement in overall QoL after gastrostomy tube placement (P = 0.532). RIG is noninferior to PEG regarding complication rates, pain, and QoL when compared in a prospective randomized fashion.

Mohamed Elfadil O ，Linch FB ，Seegmiller SL ，Hurt RT ，Mundi MS ，Neisen MJ ... -  《-》

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) versus radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG): A comparison of outcomes at an Australian teaching hospital.

Gastrostomy tubes for enteral nutrition are most commonly inserted via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) techniques. The current study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and complication rates in patients who underwent PEG and RIG procedures at a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia. A retrospective review was conducted on patients who underwent PEG or RIG tube insertion between February 2013 and February 2015 at Flinders Medical Centre, Australia. The primary outcome studied was the tube dislodgement rate. Secondary outcomes measured included hospital length of stay, 30 day and 1 year mortality and peri- and post-procedural complications such as hypoxia, bleeding, stoma site infection and haematoma. Baseline comparisons were conducted using the Mann-Whitney test and chi square test. 137 patients (PEG = 85, RIG = 52) underwent gastrostomy tube insertion. Indications for insertion were head and neck cancer (PEG = 30, RIG = 21), stroke (PEG = 27, RIG = 11), post-trauma (PEG = 6, RIG = 3) and neuromuscular pathologies (PEG = 9, RIG = 0). There was a significantly higher tube dislodgement rate in RIG (26.5%) compared to PEG (2.4%), p < 0.001. The 1-year mortality was also significantly higher after RIG (46.2%) compared to the PEG group (16.7%), p < 0.05. No differences were seen in other peri- and post-procedural complications. Although both PEG and RIG insertion techniques compare favourably in terms of the majority of peri and post procedural complications, the rates of tube dislodgement were significantly higher in the RIG group. The higher mortality rate at 1 year after RIG placement may be related to patient selection particularly as no differences were seen at 30 days.

Vidhya C ，Phoebe D ，Dhina C ，Jayne S ，Robert F ... -  《Clinical Nutrition ESPEN》

Percutaneous endoscopic, radiological and surgical gastrostomy tubes: a comparison study in head and neck cancer patients.

Rustom IK ，Jebreel A ，Tayyab M ，England RJ ，Stafford ND ... -  《JOURNAL OF LARYNGOLOGY AND OTOLOGY》

A randomized trial comparing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and radiologically inserted percutaneous gastrostomy (RIG).

Sundbom M ，Cabrera E ，Nyman R ，Barbier CE ，Johnson U ，Ljungdahl M ... -  《-》

Outcomes of radiologically inserted gastrostomy versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Gastrostomy insertion either via radiological (radiologically inserted gastrostomy, RIG) or endoscopic (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, PEG) approaches are widely practiced throughout Australia. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of inserted tubes and cost evaluation by both methods. A retrospective cohort study conducted on all-cause gastrostomy insertions at a quaternary Australian Hospital, Royal Brisbane and Womens' Hospital (RBWH) between January 2012 and August 2015. Current referral pattern is first-line gastrostomy and second-line radiological insertion. A total of 402 gastrostomy tubes were inserted with a total of 307 PEG tubes and 95 RIG tubes, with follow-up to one calendar year. Mean patient age was 61 years ± 14.2 years with 76% male patients. A total of 84% of patients were head and neck cancer patients; major indications for insertion include prophylaxis (58%), dysphagia (32%) and NBM (2.5%). Patient groups were heterogeneous with varied indications for insertion including prophylaxis, dysphagia, decompression, NBM and treatment side effects. Outcomes measured included the following: complications, premature tube failure prior to expected removal and, overall tube outcome/ disposition. A lower incidence of minor complications was observed with the RIG group than the PEG group without differences in major complications over time. Tube failure due to either blockage or dislodgement was assessed. Multivariate analysis of all-cause dislodgement found 'method of insertion' a predictor of dislodgement with RIG 5.4(OR) times more likely to be dislodged than PEG. Competing risk analysis demonstrates equipment as a significant cause of dislodgement occurring more commonly with RIG than PEG tubes. Tubes were removed more often in the PEG group because a large volume were prophylactic. Tubes were replaced more often in the RIG group, with tube blockage and equipment as causes for tube replacement in this group. Replacements occur either in suite or bedside. Costing data were limited with only 94 patients' costing data qualifying for a limited unit cost evaluation, with radiologically inserted tubes marginally more expensive than tubes inserted endoscopically. Both are safe procedures, with improved techniques; radiologically inserted gastrostomies have an improved profile with respect to dislodgement rates than previously reported in the literature. Radiological tubes remain limited by equipment factors with balloon failure an ongoing issue. Cost analysis was hindered by poor documentation; however, the opportunity cost remains an important advantage of radiological insertion at peripheral sites, increasingly relevant for health service delivery in our geographically vast state.

Cherian P ，Blake C ，Appleyard M ，Clouston J ，Mott N ... -  《-》