4731 Comparison between nasogastric tube feeding and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for patients with dysphagia; a prospective,randomized long term control study.

Abstract

Background:Patients with dysphagia have alternative treatments;either nasogastric (NG)tube or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).Quality of lives of these patients are often dependent on these treatments.Previously,a short term assessment for the comparison between these two treatments has been reported.And PEG had some advantages upon NG tube.However,these treatments last long,and so they need longterm assessment.In the present study, we perform long-term comparison including nutrition,complications,and long term survival. Materials and Method:Patients with dysphagia which are not indicated for curative therapy were eligible for the study. They were randomly divided into two groups.Group A were treated with NG tube feeding.Group B were treated with PEG. Results:Sixty seven patients were included in the study.from January 1994 through November 1999.Of 67 patients,40 are assigned to be enrolled in group A,and the other 27 are in group B.The two groups were comparable at baseline for all demographic and baseline characteristics. There were no significant differences in nutrition between Group A and Group B as for albumin (3.3vs3.4), cholesterol (175vs166), Hb (11.7vs10.7).As for the incidences of complications are as follows. Incidence of esophageal disorders is higher in group A than in group B (43%vs19%;p<0.05). The other complications like anemia,tube dislodgment,aspiration pneumonia(55%vs37%;p<0.01) are higher in Group A than Group B.Mean life expectancy is longer in Group B than Group A(11.1+/-3.3months vs 8.1+/-3.4months, p<0.05) Coclusion:Long term observation revealed that PEG feeding is a safer and long-standing nutritional method for patients with dysphagia than NG tube feeding. Background:Patients with dysphagia have alternative treatments;either nasogastric (NG)tube or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).Quality of lives of these patients are often dependent on these treatments.Previously,a short term assessment for the comparison between these two treatments has been reported.And PEG had some advantages upon NG tube.However,these treatments last long,and so they need longterm assessment.In the present study, we perform long-term comparison including nutrition,complications,and long term survival. Materials and Method:Patients with dysphagia which are not indicated for curative therapy were eligible for the study. They were randomly divided into two groups.Group A were treated with NG tube feeding.Group B were treated with PEG. Results:Sixty seven patients were included in the study.from January 1994 through November 1999.Of 67 patients,40 are assigned to be enrolled in group A,and the other 27 are in group B.The two groups were comparable at baseline for all demographic and baseline characteristics. There were no significant differences in nutrition between Group A and Group B as for albumin (3.3vs3.4), cholesterol (175vs166), Hb (11.7vs10.7).As for the incidences of complications are as follows. Incidence of esophageal disorders is higher in group A than in group B (43%vs19%;p<0.05). The other complications like anemia,tube dislodgment,aspiration pneumonia(55%vs37%;p<0.01) are higher in Group A than Group B.Mean life expectancy is longer in Group B than Group A(11.1+/-3.3months vs 8.1+/-3.4months, p<0.05) Coclusion:Long term observation revealed that PEG feeding is a safer and long-standing nutritional method for patients with dysphagia than NG tube feeding.