Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy–a user's perspective

Abstract

Sixteen patients receiving percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding following a period of nasogastric (NG) feeding were investigated to assess acceptance and identify problems by means of a questionnaire. PEG was considered to be superior to NG feeding in terms of tolerance and cosmetic acceptance by 81% and 88% of participants respectively (P< 0.001). Pain was an infrequent problem. Interruptions to feeding were consideed to be more common with NG feeding by 50% of participants; 38% considered interruptions equally common with both PEG and NG, and 12% considered interruptions more common with PEG feeding (P= NS). The time for care was equivalent for both methods. Seventy‐five percent considered PEG to have made a valuable contribution to enteral feeding. Leakage was however considered to be more frequent in PEG feeding by 81% of participants (compared to 12% who considered leakage to be more common with NG feeding; P< 0.001) and leakage was more frequent at die junctions in the catheter rather than from the stoma. Thirty‐one percent of patients with PEG had needed systemic antibiotics for stomal infections. All patients with both PEG and NG feeding needed professional help. Sixty‐two percent needed professional help more frequently with PEG than with NG feeding (compared to 19% who considered that the NG tube needed professional help more frequently; P<0.05). We conclude that leakage and infections are major problems in PEG enteral feeding.