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>...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Pelckmans Paul A, Roth Bernard, Macken Elisabeth J, Van Dyck Evi, Moreels Tom G
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