Safety of pull-type and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in oncology patients: a retrospective analysis
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) allows long-term tube feeding. Safety of pull-type and introducer PEG placement in oncology patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancies is unknown.</p> <p>Methods</p>...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
BMC
2011-03-01
|
Series: | BMC Gastroenterology |
Online Access: | http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-230X/11/23 |
id |
doaj-0123a8c1c369489b94668101e2326082 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-0123a8c1c369489b94668101e23260822020-11-25T01:42:42ZengBMCBMC Gastroenterology1471-230X2011-03-011112310.1186/1471-230X-11-23Safety of pull-type and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in oncology patients: a retrospective analysisPelckmans Paul ARoth BernardMacken Elisabeth JVan Dyck EviMoreels Tom G<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) allows long-term tube feeding. Safety of pull-type and introducer PEG placement in oncology patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancies is unknown.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Retrospective analysis of 299 patients undergoing PEG tube placement between January 2006 and December 2008 revealed 57 oncology patients. All patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancy were treated with chemo- and radiotherapy. In case of high-grade stenosis introducer Freka<sup>® </sup>Pexact PEG tube was placed (n = 24) and in all other patients (n = 33) conventional pull-type PEG tube. Short-term complications and mortality rates were compared.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients' characteristics and clinical status were comparable in both groups. Short-term complications were encountered in 11/24 (48%) introducer PEG patients as compared to only 4/33 (12%) pull-type PEG patients (P < 0.05). Accidental removal of the introducer PEG tube occurred in 4/24 (17%) with need for surgical intervention in 1 <it>vs</it>. 0/33 (0%, P < 0.05). Wound infection occurred in 3/24 (12%) leading to septic shock and admission to intensive care unit (ICU) in 1 <it>vs</it>. 3/33 (9%, NS). Finally, 3/24 gastrointestinal perforations (12%) resulted from a difficult placement procedure <it>vs</it>. 1/33 (3%), leading to urgent surgical intervention and admission to ICU. Two introducer PEG patients died at ICU, resulting in an overall mortality rate of 8% <it>vs</it>. 0% (P = 0.091).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The introducer Freka<sup>® </sup>Pexact PEG procedure for long-term tube feeding may lead to significantly higher complication and mortality rates in patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancies treated with chemo- and radiotherapy. It is suggested to use the conventional pull-type PEG tube placement in this group of patients, if possible.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-230X/11/23 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Pelckmans Paul A Roth Bernard Macken Elisabeth J Van Dyck Evi Moreels Tom G |
spellingShingle |
Pelckmans Paul A Roth Bernard Macken Elisabeth J Van Dyck Evi Moreels Tom G Safety of pull-type and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in oncology patients: a retrospective analysis BMC Gastroenterology |
author_facet |
Pelckmans Paul A Roth Bernard Macken Elisabeth J Van Dyck Evi Moreels Tom G |
author_sort |
Pelckmans Paul A |
title |
Safety of pull-type and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in oncology patients: a retrospective analysis |
title_short |
Safety of pull-type and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in oncology patients: a retrospective analysis |
title_full |
Safety of pull-type and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in oncology patients: a retrospective analysis |
title_fullStr |
Safety of pull-type and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in oncology patients: a retrospective analysis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Safety of pull-type and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in oncology patients: a retrospective analysis |
title_sort |
safety of pull-type and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in oncology patients: a retrospective analysis |
publisher |
BMC |
series |
BMC Gastroenterology |
issn |
1471-230X |
publishDate |
2011-03-01 |
description |
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) allows long-term tube feeding. Safety of pull-type and introducer PEG placement in oncology patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancies is unknown.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Retrospective analysis of 299 patients undergoing PEG tube placement between January 2006 and December 2008 revealed 57 oncology patients. All patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancy were treated with chemo- and radiotherapy. In case of high-grade stenosis introducer Freka<sup>® </sup>Pexact PEG tube was placed (n = 24) and in all other patients (n = 33) conventional pull-type PEG tube. Short-term complications and mortality rates were compared.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients' characteristics and clinical status were comparable in both groups. Short-term complications were encountered in 11/24 (48%) introducer PEG patients as compared to only 4/33 (12%) pull-type PEG patients (P < 0.05). Accidental removal of the introducer PEG tube occurred in 4/24 (17%) with need for surgical intervention in 1 <it>vs</it>. 0/33 (0%, P < 0.05). Wound infection occurred in 3/24 (12%) leading to septic shock and admission to intensive care unit (ICU) in 1 <it>vs</it>. 3/33 (9%, NS). Finally, 3/24 gastrointestinal perforations (12%) resulted from a difficult placement procedure <it>vs</it>. 1/33 (3%), leading to urgent surgical intervention and admission to ICU. Two introducer PEG patients died at ICU, resulting in an overall mortality rate of 8% <it>vs</it>. 0% (P = 0.091).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The introducer Freka<sup>® </sup>Pexact PEG procedure for long-term tube feeding may lead to significantly higher complication and mortality rates in patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancies treated with chemo- and radiotherapy. It is suggested to use the conventional pull-type PEG tube placement in this group of patients, if possible.</p> |
url |
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-230X/11/23 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT pelckmanspaula safetyofpulltypeandintroducerpercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomytubesinoncologypatientsaretrospectiveanalysis AT rothbernard safetyofpulltypeandintroducerpercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomytubesinoncologypatientsaretrospectiveanalysis AT mackenelisabethj safetyofpulltypeandintroducerpercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomytubesinoncologypatientsaretrospectiveanalysis AT vandyckevi safetyofpulltypeandintroducerpercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomytubesinoncologypatientsaretrospectiveanalysis AT moreelstomg safetyofpulltypeandintroducerpercutaneousendoscopicgastrostomytubesinoncologypatientsaretrospectiveanalysis |
_version_ |
1725034791423705088 |