Continuous Negative Pressure Operative Field Barrier for Combined Open Tracheostomy and Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement During Coronavirus Disease 2019.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gonzalez-Ciccarelli LF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7771639 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Inadvertent injury to interposing organs during percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is a feared complication of this common and generally safe procedure. Transhepatic PEG insertion is likely an underrepresented complication which may be identified incidentally on imaging or present with life-threatening conditions such as sepsis or massive bleeding. Use of ultrasound in patients with known hepatomegaly may possibly help avoid this complication. We hereby report a case of transhepatic PEG insertion, one of 16 only other cases published in the literature, and review the characteristics of the previous reported cases.
| S-EPMC7037529 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of the study was to report the use of nasogastric tube bridles to avoid dislodging of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes. Specifically it was intended to see if they reduced feeding time, medical input and costs.and setting This was a cohort study in a district hospital setting.164 patients admitted with conditions causing acutely impaired swallowing.140 of 164 patients referred received a NGT bridle.Of these, 49 (35%) died by 28 days and 68 (48.6%) at 1 year; 73 (52.1%) had regained adequate oral intake at 28 days and 27 (19.2%) had proceeded to PEG. Of those not bridled, nine (37.5%) died by 28 days and 10 (41.7%) at 1 year with the remainder eating. There was no significant difference in mortality between groups. There were no complications attributed to bridles.We conclude that nasogastric bridles are safe and represent an appropriate method to maintain nutrition while seeing if the underlying disease process will stabilise in these critically ill patients. They have the benefits of avoiding unnecessary PEG and the associated complications and cost.
| S-EPMC5517266 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPeristomal wound infection is a common complication in patients receiving percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). The main reason for peristomal infection might be the oral microbes coating the gastrostomy tube during implantation. Povidone-iodine solution can be applied for skin and oral decontamination. We designed a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a Betadine® (povidone-iodine) coated gastrostomy tube to reduce peristomal infection after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.MethodsA total of 50 patients were randomized to Betadine and control groups (25 patients in each group) from April 2014 to August 2021 at a tertiary medical center. All patients received the pull method for PEG implantation using a 24-french gastrostomy tube. The primary endpoint was peristomal wound infection rate 2 weeks after the procedure.ResultsChanges in Neutrophil/Lymphocyte ratio (N/L ratio) and C-Reative protein (Delta CRP) at 24 h after PEG were higher in the control group than in the Betadine group (N/L ratio, 3.1 vs. 1.2, p = 0.047; CRP, 2.68 vs.1.16, p = 0.009). The two groups did not differ in post-PEG fever, peristomal infection, pneumonia, or all-cause infection. Delta CRP could predict peristomal infection and all-cause infection within 2 weeks (AUROC 0.712 vs. 0.748; p = 0.039 vs. 0.008). The best cut-off-point of Delta CRP for the diagnosis of peristomal wound infection was 3 mg/dl.ConclusionThe betadine coating gastrostomy tube method could not reduce peristomal infection after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. CRP elevation of less than 3 mg/dl may be used to exclude the potential peristomal wound infection.Trial registrationNCT04249570 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04249570 ).
| S-EPMC10186665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the most commonly used access for long-term enteral nutrition. Only a few studies report the prevalence and epidemiology of PEG placements. No previous data concentrated on the healthcare system issues influencing the qualification rates and professional nutritional support for individuals with PEG.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective nationwide analysis of PEG placements in Poland from 2010 to 2020. The central data on ICD-10 coding of adult patients with PEG reported to the insurance company were used for the analysis of general and regional prevalence, age, and primary and secondary diseases. Rates of patients with home enteral nutrition (HEN) were calculated with a special focus on patients with cancer. A secondary aim was to determine the causes of regional disparities among administrative regions.ResultsA total number of 90,182 PEGs were placed during the observation period. The number was increasing each year with statistical significance. Malnutrition, dysphagia, and cardiorespiratory/metabolic diseases were the most frequently reported primary diseases. A total of 11.98% of all patients were diagnosed with cancer; 49.9% of oncological patients suffered from head and neck cancer (HNC) and 19.9% from esophageal cancer. In total, 6.61% of HNC and 27.46% of patients with esophageal cancer from the Polish National Cancer Registry (NCR) had PEG. The rates of patients in more advanced ages (65-74 and over 85 years) were growing and decreased in younger groups (18-24, 45-54, and 55-64 years). Overall, 27.6% of all (11.86% of cancer) patients with PEG were reimbursed HEN. A high number of patients in nursing care facilities, lower education of citizens, and lower number of hospital beds were associated with more PEG insertions in the administrative regions.ConclusionThe number of PEG placements has been increasing, particularly in the elderly. Systemic solutions must be found to address the problems of regional disparities in PEG's prevalence as well as the lack of inclusion criteria for nutritional support.
| S-EPMC9189377 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aims: This study aimed to review the indications, methods, cooperation, complications, and outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).Methods: Questionnaires were sent to 200 hospitals, of which 62 returned their questionnaires, with a response rate of approximately 30%. Descriptive statistics were calculated to analyze the responses to the questionnaires.Results: In 2019, a total of 1,052 PEGs were performed in 1,017 patients at 62 hospitals. The main group who underwent PEG was older adult patients with brain disease, particularly stroke. Nutritional supply was an important purpose of the PEG procedure. "The pull method" was the most commonly used for initial PEG insertion. The complications related to PEG were mostly mild, with leakage being the most common. Patients who underwent PEG procedures were primarily educated regarding the post-procedure management and complications related to PEG. Preoperative meetings were skipped at >50% of the institutions. Regarding the cooperation between the nutrition support team (NST) and the physician performing PEG, few endoscopists answered that they cooperated with NST before and after PEG. Moreover, the rate of NST certification obtained by physicians performing PEG and the frequency of attendance at NST-related conferences were relatively low.Conclusions: This study shows a similar trend to that found in the previous PEG guidelines. However, it covers new aspects, including team-based work for PEG procedure, nutrition support, and education for patients and guardians. Therefore, each medical institution needs to select an appropriate method considering the medical environment and doctor's abilities.
| S-EPMC10791510 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5992018 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5134916 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With an aging population, the number of patients with difficulty swallowing due to medical conditions is gradually increasing. In such cases, enteral nutrition is administered through a temporary nasogastric tube. Long-term use of a nasogastric tube leads to various complications and a decreased quality of life. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the percutaneous placement of a tube into the stomach, aided endoscopically, which may be an alternative to a nasogastric tube when enteral nutritional is required for 4 weeks or more. This paper is the first Korean clinical guideline for PEG. It was developed jointly by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research and led by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. These guidelines aimed to provide physicians, including endoscopists, with the indications, use of prophylactic antibiotics, timing of enteric nutrition, tube placement methods, complications, replacement, and tubes removal for PEG based on the currently available clinical evidence.
| S-EPMC10791499 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are invasive interventions used for enteral access. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with assessment of certainty of evidence to compare the risk of adverse outcomes and technical failure between PEG and PRG.MethodsWe queried PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane from inception through January 2022 to identify studies comparing outcomes of PEG and PRG. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included the risk of colon perforation, peritonitis, bleeding, technical failure, peristomal infections, and tube-related complications. We performed GRADE assessment to assess the certainty of evidence and leave-one-out analysis for sensitivity analysis.ResultsIn the final analysis, 33 studies, including 26 high-quality studies, provided data on 275,117 patients undergoing PEG and 192,691 patients undergoing PRG. Data from high quality studies demonstrated that, compared to PRG, PEG had significantly lower odds of selected outcomes, including 30-day all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.95; P=0.02), colon perforation (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.49-0.75; P<0.001), and peritonitis (OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.63-0.81; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between PEG and PRG in terms of technical failure, bleeding, peristomal infections or mechanical complications. The certainty of the evidence was rated moderate for colon perforation and low for all other outcomes.ConclusionsPEG is associated with a significantly lower risk of 30-day all-cause mortality, colon perforation, and peritonitis compared to PRG, while having a comparable technical failure rate. PEG should be considered as the first-line technique for enteral access.
| S-EPMC9648526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA portable disposable ultrathin endoscope (DUE) with high visual quality and maneuverability would reduce the need for expensive facilities and emergency endoscopy could be available anywhere. It would increase patient satisfaction, prevent unnecessary sedation, and reduce infection. Our aim was to evaluate the usefulness of portable DUE in performing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).MethodsWe prospectively enrolled patients who underwent PEG under DUE guidance and compared them with historical controls who underwent PEG under conventional ultrathin endoscopy (CUE) guidance. The primary outcomes were successful stomach visualization and PEG tube insertion.ResultsTwenty-five patients (19 male) were enrolled and compared with 25 gender and indication-matched controls. The most common indications for PEG were aspiration due to stroke or brain injury, dementia, and head and neck cancer. Entrance into the stomach was achieved in 92.0% (23/25) and 96% (24/25) in the DUE and CUE groups, and PEG was performed in 91.3% (21/23) and 95.8% (23/24), respectively. The mean insertion time for the DUE and CUE groups were 22.7 ± 9.3 minutes and 17.1 ± 5.7 minutes (P = 0.044). The 3 cases of failure to reach the stomach in both groups were caused by esophageal blockage. The 3 cases of failed PEG tube insertion were caused by poor visualization of the insertion site. Bleeding and pneumoperitoneum occurred in 1 and 2 patients in the DUE group. One case of fever was noted in the CUE group. All adverse events were conservatively managed.ConclusionsOur study shows that portable DUE in facilities without endoscopy equipment may be clinically feasible.
| S-EPMC5134776 | biostudies-literature