Randomized study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiation. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): comparison of push and pull methods and evaluation of antibiotic prophylaxis. Feeding via nasogastric tube or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. A comparison. A prospective comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding in patients with acute dysphagic stroke. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy does not prolong survival in patients with dementia. Antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG)--results from a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Effect of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy on gastro-esophageal reflux in mechanically-ventilated patients.
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes have largely replaced nasogastric tubes (NGT) for nutritional support of patients with head and neck cancer undergoing curative (chemo)radiotherapy without any good scientific basis. A randomized trial was conducted to compare PEG tubes and NGT in terms of nutritional outcomes, complications, patient satisfaction and cost. The study was closed early because of poor accrual, predominantly due to patients' reluctance to be randomized. There were 33 patients eligible for analysis. Nutritional support with both tubes was good. There were no significant differences in overall complication rates, chest infection rates or in patients' assessment of their overall quality of life. The cost of a PEG tube was 10 times that of an NGT. The duration of use of PEG tubes was significantly longer, a median 139 days compared with a median 66 days for NGT. We found no evidence to support the routine use of PEG tubes over NGT in this patient group. Infection of the gastrostomy opening after placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) catheter has been reported to occur quite often, especially when the pull method is used. We therefore compared complications occurring with the pull and push methods, and evaluated the role of antibiotic prophylaxis.
                In a prospective study, 100 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to group A (pull plus antibiotic prophylaxis: amoxycillin-clavulanic acid 3 x 1.2 g i.v. over 24 hours; 37 patients), group B (pull without antibiotic prophylaxis; 34 patients) and group C (push without antibiotic prophylaxis; 29 patients). The indications for PEG placement were dysphagia due to oropharyngeal tumors (56%), neurological disease (32%), or other (12%). Patients were evaluated twice weekly for one month after the PEG placement.
                PEG catheters were successfully placed in 96% of the patients. The total procedure-related complication rate was significantly lower in group A than in groups B and C (28%, 58%, and 70%, respectively; p < 0.01). Major complications occurred in one patient in group A (seeding metastasis of a hypopharyngeal carcinoma in the gastrostomy tract), and in four patients in group B (three cases of peritonitis and one aspiration, resulting in two deaths), but in none of the group C patients. Group A patients experienced fewer peristomal infections than the other two groups (14%, 30%, and 41%, respectively: p = 0.05). The risk of peristomal pain was similar (11%, 15%, and 11%, respectively; p = n.s.). In three patients in group C, the PEG catheter had to be replaced by the pull method, due to repeated dislocation of the balloon catheter.
                The complication rate with PEG placement is high with both the push and pull methods. The complication rate with the pull method is significantly reduced when antibiotic prophylaxis is used. When a patient needs enteral feeding, there are two methods to administer the nutrition. The method most used is the nasogastric tube (NGT), although in the literature little is published about the advantages and complications of the NGT. The second method is percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). A prospective randomized trial was started, and so far 90 patients have entered the study (46 NGT and 44 PEG). In four patients it was not possible to insert the NGT, and in three patients it was impossible to place the PEG. In both groups 6.5% aspiration was found. Nasal decubitus and swallowing problems were seen in 13% and 17%, respectively, in the NGT group. Intraperitoneal bleeding and abdominal pain were found in 2% and 11%, respectively, in the PEG group. Fixation of the patients was needed in 7% of the PEG and 22% in the NGT group. In eight patients in the NGT group the feeding had to be stopped owing to problems; in none of the PEG group was this necessary. The nursing staff awarded marks to each patient on a scale of 5 for the convenience of care (very good, 1; very bad, 5). This resulted in a mean score of 2.6 in the NGT and 2.0 in the PEG group. The score given by the patients was 2.3 in the NGT and 1.8 in the PEG group. There seems to be a clear preference for the PEG as a method for enteral nutrition. Dysphagia following stroke is common problem and is of particular concern because of its potental for malnutrition. Nasogastric (NG) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube feeding are recognized methods for nutritional support for patients with persistent neurologic dysphagia. However, the former is associated with tube dislodgement and blockage that might compromise the patients' nutritional status. There have been few randomized prospective studies to date comparing the efficacy and safety of these 2 modes of dysphagia management in stroke patients. The objective of this study was to compare PEG with NG tube feeding after acute dysphagic stroke in terms of nutritional status and treatment failure. This was a randomized prospective clinical trial. A total of 23 consecutive patients who fulfilled the criteria were recruited from the medical wards in Hospital Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. The diagnosis of stroke (acute cerebral infarct) was based on clinical and brain computed tomographic (CT scan) findings; and the diagnosis of dysphagia was done clinically by using the 'swallowing test'. At recruitment, upper-arm skin fold thickness (triceps and biceps) and mid-arm circumference were measured; and blood was drawn for serum albumin level. They were then followed up at 4 weeks where the above tests were repeated. A total of 22 patients completed the study (12 patients in the NG group and 10 patients in the PEG group). Serum albumin levels (p = 0.045) were significantly higher in the PEG as compared to the NG group at 4 weeks post-intervention. There were statistically significant improvements in serum albumin level (p = 0.024) in the PEG group; and statistically significant reductions in serum albumin level (p = 0.047) in the NG group 4 weeks after the intervention. However, there were no significant differences in anthropometric parameters between the two groups and no significant changes in these parameters for each group 4 weeks after the intervention. Treatment failure occurred in 5 out of 10 patients (50.0%) in the NG group, but none in PEG group (p = 0.036). PEG tube feeding is more effective than NG tube feeding in improving the nutritional status (in terms of the serum albumin level) of patients with dysphagic stroke. NG tube feeding, in fact, reduced the nutritional status (in terms of the serum albumin level) of the patients. Artificial feeding by a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube in patients with dementia has increased since the introduction of the endoscopic method of tube placement. Few studies have documented survival benefit from this intervention. This report reviews our experience with PEG tube placement for feeding patients with dementia.
                All consultations for PEG tube placement were evaluated by a certified nutrition support nurse (L.M.M.) in consultation with a member of the gastroenterology physician staff (T.O.L.) for 24 months. Evaluation included the attainment of a brief medical history, a physical examination, and a review of comorbid conditions, laboratory variables for nutrition status, and bleeding risk. Interviews with patients or surrogates were conducted, including an explanation of the risks and benefits of PEG tube placement. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve was used to compare the median survival between patients with dementia who received a PEG tube and patients with dementia in whom PEG tube placement was refused.
                We received 41 consultations for PEG tube placement in patients with dementia. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy was performed in 23 patients; 18 patients met the medical criteria for PEG tube placement, but surrogates refused placement. The median survival for the 23 patients who underwent PEG was 59 days; the median survival for the 18 patients who did not undergo PEG was 60 days.
                There seems to be no survival benefit in patients with dementia who receive artificial feeding by a PEG tube. To determine the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) as a part of a standardized regimen.
                An open prospective randomised multicenter study in 216 patients. 106 received ceftriaxone 1 g i.v. 30 min preinterventionally and 110 no study medication. A standardized protocol was followed for PEG preparation, insertion, and aftercare; all patients received a 15 French gastrostomy tube. Follow-up of local and systemic infection and clinical course was continued to postintervention day 10. An aggregate erythema and exudation score > 3 or the presence of pus was taken as indicative of peristomal infection. The pharmacoeconomics of antibiotic use were also examined.
                In no-prophylaxis patients, wound infection rates were 23.6% on day 4 and 24.5% on day 10 vs. 7.6% (p < 0.05) and 11.4% (p < 0.05), respectively, in prophylaxis patients. Results were disproportionally better in tumor patients in comparison with neurological patients. Patients systemic infection rates were 11.8% vs. 1.9% in noprophylaxis vs. prophylaxis (p < 0.05), and overall infection rates 36.3% vs. 13.3%, respectively (p < 0.05). Pneumonia was more frequent in patients with underlying neurological disease and reduced in the prophylaxis group. Antibiotic and application costs were similar in both groups (p = 0.400).
                Single-dose ceftriaxone 1 g is a effective prophylaxis against local and systemic infection after PEG and should be a part of a standard regimen. To investigate the effect of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) on gastroesophageal reflux (GER) in mechanically-ventilated patients.
                In a prospective, randomized, controlled study 36 patients with recurrent or persistent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and GER > 6% were divided into PEG group (n = 16) or non-PEG group (n = 20). Another 11 ventilated patients without reflux (GER < 3%) served as control group. Esophageal pH-metry was performed by the "pull through" method at baseline, 2 and 7 d after PEG. Patients were strictly followed up for semi-recumbent position and control of gastric nutrient residue.
                A significant decrease of median (range) reflux was observed in PEG group from 7.8 (6.2 - 15.6) at baseline to 2.7 (0 - 10.4) on d 7 post-gastrostomy (P < 0.01), while the reflux increased from 9 (6.2 - 22) to 10.8 (6.3 - 36.6) (P < 0.01) in non-PEG group. A significant correlation between GER (%) and the stay of nasogastric tube was detected (r = 0.56, P < 0.01).
                Gastrostomy when combined with semi-recumbent position and absence of nutrient gastric residue reduces the gastroesophageal reflux in ventilated patients.
PEG was associated with a lower probability of intervention failure, suggesting the endoscopic procedure is more effective and safe as compared to NGT. There is no significant difference of mortality rates between comparison groups, and pneumonia irrespective of underlying disease (medical diagnosis). Future studies should include previously planned and executed follow-up periods, the gastrostomy technique, and the experience of the professionals to allow more detailed subgroup analysis.