Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

20 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding effects in patients with neurogenic dysphagia and recurrent pneumonia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding provides enteral nutrition to patients with neurological dysphagia. However, the conditions in which PEG should be applied to prevent pneumonia remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the effect of PEG for patients with neurological dysphagia in preventing pneumonia.

Methods

We undertook a retrospective data review of 232 patients with neurological dysphagia who had undergone PEG from January 2008 to December 2018 at Inha University Hospital, in Incheon, Korea. We excluded patients who had not been followed up 6 months pre- and post-PEG feeding. In total, our study comprised 42 patients. We compared pneumonia episodes and incidence pre- and post-PEG.

Results

During the median post-PEG follow-up period, the 6-month pneumonia incidence among patients who had undergone PEG had decreased [median 0.3 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.0-0.7) versus 0.1 (IQR 0.1-0.3) episodes, p = 0.04]. In a multiple mixed model, PEG did not decrease the incidence of pneumonia (p = 0.76). However, the association between PEG and the incidence of pneumonia differed significantly depending on the presence or absence of recurrent pneumonia (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

PEG could effectively reduce the incidence of pneumonia in patients with neurogenic dysphagia, especially in those who had experienced recurrent pneumonia.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

SUBMITTER: Lee JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8010805 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Outcomes and Complications of Radiological Gastrostomy vs. Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy for Enteral Feeding: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are commonly utilized to establish access to enteral nutrition. However, data comparing the outcomes of PEG vs. PRG are conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an updated systemic review and meta-analysis comparing PRG and PEG outcomes.MethodsMedline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched until February 24, 2023. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, tube leakage, tube dislodgement, perforation, and peritonitis. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, infectious complications, and aspiration pneumonia. All analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software.ResultsThe initial search revealed 872 studies. Of these, 43 of these studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis. Of 471,208 total patients, 194,399 received PRG and 276,809 received PEG. PRG was associated with higher odds of 30-day mortality when compared to PEG (odds ratio (OR): 1.205, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.015 - 1.430, I2 = 55%). In addition, tube leakage and tube dislodgement were higher in the PRG group than in PEG (OR: 2.231, 95% CI: 1.184 - 4.2 and OR: 2.602, 95% CI: 1.911 - 3.541, respectively). Perforation, peritonitis, bleeding, and infectious complications were higher with PRG than PEG.ConclusionPEG is associated with lower 30-day mortality, tube leakage, and tube dislodgement rates than PRG.

| S-EPMC10181338 | biostudies-literature

Transhepatic Insertion of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube.

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

Clinical Practice Guideline for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy.

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

Percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: a retrospective analysis on outcomes and complications.

Project description:Background and study aims ?Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) are techniques used for long-term enteral feeding. Our primary aim was to analyze procedure-related and 30-day mortality and complications between PEG and PRG in relation to indications. Patients and methods ?A single-center retrospective analysis was performed thath included all adult patients receiving initial PEG (January 2008 until April 2016) and PRG (January 2010 until April 2016). Outcomes were mortality (procedure-related, 30-day), complications (early (??30 days) and late) and success rates. Results ?A total of 760 procedures (469 PRG and 291 PEG) were analyzed. Most common indications were head and neck cancer (HNC), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Success rates for placement were 91.2?% for PEG and 97.1?% for PRG ( P ?=?0.001). Procedure-related mortality was 1.7?% in PEG and 0.4?% in PRG ( P ?=?0.113). The 30-day mortality was 10.7?% in PEG and 5.1?% in PRG ( P ?=?0.481 after multivariate logistic regression) CVA was associated with higher 30-day mortality, whereas ALS, higher body weight, and prophylactic placements in HNC were associated with lower rates. Tube-related complications were less frequent in PEG, both early (2.7?% vs. 26.4?%, P ???0.001) and late (8.6?% vs. 31.5?%, P ???0.001). The percentage of major complications and infections did not differ. Conclusions ?With respect to procedure-related and 30-day mortality, PEG and PRG compare equally. PRG had a higher procedural success rate. Tube-related complications and pain are less frequent after PEG compared to PRG. The choice for either PEG or PRG therefore should primarily be based on local facilities and expertise.

| S-EPMC6811353 | biostudies-literature

Therapeutic effects of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy on survival in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A meta-analysis.

Project description:Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a method widely used for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS); nevertheless, its effect on survival remains unclear. The purpose of this meta-analysis study was to determine the effects of PEG on survival in ALS patients. Relevant studies were retrieved from PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library databases, from inception to June 2017. Studies comparing PEG with other procedures in ALS patients were included. Odds ratios (ORs) in a random-effects model were used to assess the survival at different follow-up periods. Briefly, ten studies involving a total of 996 ALS patients were included. Summary ORs indicated that PEG administration was not associated with 30-day (OR = 1.59; 95%CI 0.93-2.71; P = 0.092), 10-month (OR = 1.25; 95%CI 0.72-2.17; P = 0.436), and 30-month (OR = 1.28; 95% CI 0.77-2.11; P = 0.338) survival rates, while they showed a beneficial effect in 20-month survival rate (OR = 1.97; 95%CI 1.21-3.21; P = 0.007). The survival rate was significantly prominent in reports published before 2005, and in studies with a retrospective design, sample size <100, mean age <60.0 years, and percentage male ≥50.0%. To sum up, these findings suggested that ALS patients administered with PEG had an increased 20-month survival rates, while there was no significant effect in 30-day, 10-month, and 30-month survival rates.

| S-EPMC5800689 | biostudies-literature

Portable disposable ultrathin endoscopy tested through percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

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

Differences in the incidence of postoperative pneumonia after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy between liquid and semi-solid nutrient administration.

Project description:Background/objectivesThis historical control study examined the differences in the incidence of postoperative pneumonia between patients administered liquid and semi-solid nutrients after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).Subjects/methodsThe medical records of adult patients who underwent PEG between March 1999 and March 2014 were investigated. The patients were administered either liquid or semi-solid nutrient and examined for gastroesophageal reflux via radiography after PEG. The study period was divided into periods I (liquid nutrient to all patients), II (semi-solid nutrient to patients with reflux and liquid nutrient to those without), and III (semi-solid nutrient to all patients). The patient characteristics and incidence of postoperative pneumonia were stratified by the periods. To assess the relationship between postoperative pneumonia and the periods, a logistic regression analysis was performed.ResultsOf 370 patients enrolled, 149 were in period I, 64 in period II, and 157 in period III. Postoperative pneumonia was more frequently observed in period I (20.8%) than in periods II (7.8%) and III (10.2%). The odds ratios were higher in period I (period I vs. II: 3.10 [95% confidence intervals: 1.15-8.38]; period I vs. III: 2.32 [1.21-4.44]). The incidence of gastroesophageal reflux did not greatly differ between periods II (25.0%) and III (35.0%).ConclusionsThe incidence of postoperative pneumonia after PEG was lower in the patients administered semi-solid nutrient than in those administered liquid nutrient, suggesting that semi-solid nutrient administration to patients with PEG tubes is preferable to prevent postoperative pneumonia. Furthermore, it may be favored especially in those with gastroesophageal reflux.

| S-EPMC6368559 | biostudies-literature

Safety of the One Step Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (Push-PEG) Button in Pediatric Patients.

Project description:ObjectivesPercutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) - Systems are essential tools for enteral feeding in a broad variety of pediatric patients. The One Step ("Push-PEG") technique allows the direct introduction of a PEG-Button. The aim of the study was to investigate the safety and parental view of the Push-PEG technique.MethodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective data and questionnaire (SDC, http://links.lww.com/MPG/D296 ) based study including all pediatric patients receiving a PEG via push or pull technique between 2015 until end of 2020 and compared these two groups. The primary outcome was the detection of minor and major complications. Secondary outcomes were growth, thriving and parental contentment using a likert-scaled questionnaire .Results83 patients were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in the basic data regarding age, weight or diagnosis category. Overall complication rate was 34,9%. The Push-PEG group showed a lower rate of complications (32,7% vs 38,7%) and a lower rate of major complications (4.1% vs 8,8%), although the difference is not significant. 34 families completed the questionnaire (SDC, http://links.lww.com/MPG/D296 ) (response rate 40%). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding answers of the likert-scaled questions.ConclusionPush-PEG placement seems to be as safe as placement via traditional pull technique, even in small infants more than 2.8 months and 4 kg. As Push-PEG placement requires less follow-up interventions it may show significant advantages and could be the method of first choice in many cases.

| S-EPMC10642703 | biostudies-literature

Comparison between gastrostomy feeding and self-expandable metal stent insertion for patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia.

Project description:Self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) insertion and percutaneous gastrostomy (PG) feeding are commonly used for patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia. This study aimed to compare outcomes between SEMS insertion and PG feeding for them.We retrospectively analyzed 308 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent fully covered SEMS insertion (stent group) or PG (gastrostomy group) for dysphagia due to tumor. Patients with other causes of dysphagia, such as radiation-induced or postoperative stricture, were excluded from the study. Clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups, including overall survival and need for additional intervention and postprocedural nutritional status.At baseline, the stent group (n = 169) had more stage IV patients, less cervical cancers, and received radiotherapy and esophagectomy less often than the gastrostomy group (n = 64). The Kaplan-Meier curves showed higher overall survival in the gastrostomy group than in the stent group. Multivariate analysis revealed that PG was associated with better survival compared with SEMS insertion (hazard ratio 0.541, 95% confidence interval 0.346-0.848, p = 0.007). In addition, the gastrostomy group needed additional intervention less often (3.1% vs. 21.9%, p < 0.001) and experienced less decrease in serum albumin levels (-0.15 ± 0.56 g/dL vs. -0.39 ± 0.58 g/dL, p = 0.011) than the stent group after procedure.Our data suggested that, compared with SEMS insertion, PG is associated with better overall survival in patients with esophageal cancer and dysphagia. Stabilized nutritional status by PG may play a role in improving patient survival.

| S-EPMC5478133 | biostudies-literature

A retrospective matched cohort study evaluating the effects of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tubes on nutritional status and survival in patients with advanced gastroesophageal malignancies undergoing systemic anti-cancer therapy.

Project description:Many patients with cancer or other systemic illnesses can experience malnutrition. One way to mitigate malnutrition is by insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube (PEG tube). The goal of this retrospective matched cohort study is to evaluate if PEG tube placement improved nutritional status and overall survival (OS) in advanced gastroesophageal (GE) cancer patients who are undergoing anti-neoplastic therapy.GE cancer patients who were treated and evaluated by a nutritionist and had at least 2 nutritionist follow-up visits were identified. Patients with PEG tube were matched to patients that did not undergo PEG placement (non-PEG). Clinical characteristics, GE symptoms reported at nutrition follow-up visits, and OS were recorded.20 PEG and 18 non-PEG cases met criteria for further analyses. After correction for multiple testing, there were no OS differences between PEG and non-PEG, treatment naive and previously treated. However, PEG esophageal carcinoma has statistically significant inferior OS compared with non-PEG esophageal carcinoma. PEG placement did not significantly reduce the proportion of patients with weight loss between the initial nutrition assessment and 12-week follow-up.In this small study, PEG placement had inferior OS outcome for GE esophageal carcinoma, no improvement in OS for other evaluated groups, and did not reduce weight loss between baseline and 12-week follow-up. Unless there is prospective randomized trial that can show superiority of PEG placement in this population, PEG placement in this group cannot be endorsed.

| S-EPMC5706679 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data