Prediction of risk of adverse events related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a retrospective study
- PMID: 31474793
- PMCID: PMC6686100
- DOI: 10.20524/aog.2019.0409
Prediction of risk of adverse events related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a retrospective study
Abstract
Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a popular method for long-term enteral feeding. Our aim was to determine potential risk factors for adverse events related to PEG, as well as consequent prolonged hospitalization.
Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from the admission records of a tertiary center between July 2015 and June 2018. Possible predictors of the 3 following outcomes were evaluated: minor PEG-related adverse events, major PEG-related adverse events, and length of hospital stay. Data were tested for correlation using the Spearman coefficient and for association using Kruskal-Wallis tests for significance.
Results: A total of 362 admissions involving 146 patients were included in the study. Of the admissions, 221 (61.0%) had only minor adverse events, 100 (27.6%) had only major adverse events, and 41 (11.3%) had both. Eighty (22.1%) had PEG-site infection and 128 (35%) had aspiration pneumonia. Serum albumin levels at presentation were negatively correlated with the length of hospitalization (P<0.001), which also differed between patients presenting with major and minor adverse events (P<0.001 and P=0.026). The Charlson comorbidity index was positively correlated with the duration of hospitalization (P<0.001). Higher index scores were found more among patients presenting with aspiration pneumonia (P=0.004) and lower scores were found among patients presenting with PEG site infection and inadvertent PEG removal compared with those presenting with a major complication (P<0.001).
Conclusion: The patient's general medical condition and nutritional status are the greatest risk predictors for developing adverse events related to their PEG feeding, as well as a consequent extended hospital stay.
Keywords: Charlson comorbidity index; Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; albumin; risk prediction.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of Interest: None
Similar articles
-
A Descriptive Study of enteral tube feeding among adults in an acute care tertiary hospital-patient selection, characteristics and complications.Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2020 Jun;37:58-64. doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2020.03.021. Epub 2020 Apr 16. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2020. PMID: 32359756
-
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for enteral nutrition: a 5-year clinical experience with 324 patients.Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol. 2019 Mar;65(1):20-29. doi: 10.23736/S1121-421X.18.02535-7. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol. 2019. PMID: 30676011
-
Semi-solid feeds may reduce the risk of aspiration pneumonia and shorten postoperative length of stay after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).Endosc Int Open. 2016 Dec;4(12):E1247-E1251. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-117218. Epub 2016 Nov 15. Endosc Int Open. 2016. PMID: 27995184 Free PMC article.
-
Indications, effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: A single center experience and literature review.Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2021;30(1):42-50. doi: 10.6133/apjcn.202103_30(1).0006. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2021. PMID: 33787039 Review.
-
Complications in children with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement.World J Pediatr. 2019 Feb;15(1):12-16. doi: 10.1007/s12519-018-0206-y. Epub 2018 Nov 19. World J Pediatr. 2019. PMID: 30456563 Review.
Cited by
-
A dedicated feeding tube clinic reduces emergency department utilization for gastrostomy tube complications.Surg Endosc. 2022 Sep;36(9):6969-6974. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09065-5. Epub 2022 Feb 7. Surg Endosc. 2022. PMID: 35132448
-
Prevention and management of minor complications in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2022 Jul;9(1):e000975. doi: 10.1136/bmjgast-2022-000975. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2022. PMID: 35851280 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Outcomes of push and pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placements in 854 patients: A single-center study.JGH Open. 2021 Dec 8;6(1):57-62. doi: 10.1002/jgh3.12694. eCollection 2022 Jan. JGH Open. 2021. PMID: 35071789 Free PMC article.
-
Gastrostomy Tube Insertion Complications and Patient Care Outcomes in a Tertiary Care Hospital.Cureus. 2021 Oct 3;13(10):e18458. doi: 10.7759/cureus.18458. eCollection 2021 Oct. Cureus. 2021. PMID: 34745782 Free PMC article.
-
Buried bumper syndrome: improving patient outcomes using a structured multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach to management.Frontline Gastroenterol. 2022 Apr 11;13(6):503-508. doi: 10.1136/flgastro-2021-102070. eCollection 2022. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2022. PMID: 36250177 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ., Jr Gastrostomy without laparotomy:a percutaneous endoscopic technique 1980. Nutrition. 1998;14:736–738. - PubMed
-
- de Baere T, Chapot R, Kuoch V, et al. Percutaneous gastrostomy with fluoroscopic guidance:single-center experience in 500 consecutive cancer patients. Radiology. 1999;210:651–654. - PubMed
-
- Silas AM, Pearce LF, Lestina LS, et al. Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy:a comparison of indications, complications and outcomes in 370 patients. Eur J Radiol. 2005;56:84–90. - PubMed
-
- Bankhead RR, Fisher CA, Rolandelli RH. Gastrostomy tube placement outcomes:comparison of surgical, endoscopic, and laparoscopic methods. Nutr Clin Pract. 2005;20:607–612. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources