Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy: a critical reappraisal of patient selection, tube function and the feasibility of nutritional support during extended follow-up

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a generally accepted procedure, but the appropriateness of patient selection and the justification of jejunal feeding have not been systematically investigated. Also, a critical appraisal of the applicability and tolerance of nutritional support in the immediate postinsertion period and during prolonged outpatient care is lacking. Methods: Prospectively collected data in adult and pediatric patients during a period of 7 years were analyzed. Follow-up data were available at days 1, 7 and 28 and thereafter every 6 to 12 weeks until gastrostomy removal, death or the conclusion of the study. Results: A PEG was successfully positioned in 268 of the 286 referred patients (94%). A jejunal tube through the PEG (JETPEG) was placed beyond the duodenojejunal ligament in 38 patients. Procedure-related mortality was 1%, 30-day outpatient mortality 6.7%. Total follow-up was 295 patient-years with an overall mortality of 53% (PEG 53%; JETPEG 50%). Both major (8.4%) and minor (24.0%) procedure-related complications in the first 28 days consisted merely of (infectious) wound problems. In prolonged follow-up, the complications were more tube-related. The durability of the tube in surviving patients with a PEG or JETPEG in situ was a median of 495 days (range 162 to 1732 days). Tube dysfunction because of clogging, porosity and fracture occurred after a median of 347 days (range 9 to 1123 days). Nausea, vomiting, bloating and dumping interfered with feeding during the first week and during extended follow-up. Intrajejunal feeding was associated with dumping and diarrhea. In retrospect, the anticipated need of 4 weeks of enteral nutrition was not met in 9.0%. The extension of a PEG into a JETPEG was thought inappropriate in 23.7%. In the remainder, a 91% reduction in aspiration justified its use. The tube life span was equal to or greater than that of a PEG, despite tube dysfunction in 26.8%. Conclusions: Proper selection of patients for a PEG, i.e., those with an anticipated need of greater than 4 weeks of enteral nutrition, is a challenge. Notwithstanding an increased rate of tube dysfunction, well-selected patients may benefit from a JETPEG. Follow-up is mandatory because many patients might have become malnourished or underfed while on tube feeding, mainly because of GI intolerance. (Gastrointest Endosc 1999;50:746-54.)