Per-oral Image-guided Gastrostomy Research Articles

Improved survival and 30-day mortality after gastrostomy in Scottish motor neurone disease patients: evidence from a national retrospective cohort study using STROBE criteria

Objectives: Defining historical changes and outcomes in the use of gastrostomy in the management of Scottish MND patients. Methods: The 1989–1998 and 2015–2016 Scottish national MND cohorts were used to examine the frequency, timing, and survival related to gastrostomy. The cohorts were censored for survival analysis. Results: There were 261 cases, 119 (46%) from the new register (2015–2016) and 142 (54%) from the old register (1989–1999). Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes were used exclusively in the old register vs. the new register where PEG (45%), Radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) (44%) and a small number of peroral image-guided gastrostomy (PIGG) tubes (11%), p < 0.01 were used. Odds of 30-d mortality in the old register were 2.8 times that in the new register, p < 0.01. Median survival time from gastrostomy was significantly higher in the new register, 2.7 months, p < 0.05. Median survival time from onset was also higher in the new register but non-significant, 3.2 months, p = 0.30. Multivariate analysis identified age at onset (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02 p = 0.01), time from onset to diagnosis (HR 0.74 p < 0.01), subtype of onset (HR 1.52 p = 0.01), with gastrostomy and Riluzole interacting as variables that predict risk of death. Conclusions: Gastrostomy use has increased with techniques changing over time. It is safer and survival time has increased post gastrostomy. Being older and diagnosed more quickly increases risk of death whilst taking Riluzole combined with gastrostomy reduced risk of death. Survival from onset has not significantly changed in Scottish MND patients having gastrostomy.

Which G-Tube to Use in Pullers: Assessment of Pull Pressures on Skin Models to Determine Optimal Catheter Choice in Patients with Recurrent Pulled Gastrostomy Tubes.

Pulled or dislodged gastrostomy catheters represent a common complication associated with percutaneous gastrostomy and are a common cause of recurrent visits in patients with altered mental status.We intended to perform an experiment to compare the pull forces required to dislodge different commonly used gastrostomy catheters. We used a digital force gauge device to measure the pull forces required to dislodge three types of 20 French gastrostomy catheters in double-layer skin models. These included the Flow 20 Pull Method (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA), Entuit Gastrostomy BR Balloon Retention feeding tube (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA), and Ponsky Non-Balloon Replacement Gastrostomy Tube (CR Bard Inc, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA). The catheters were inserted into the skin model using the same technique as would be utilized in a patient. The mean forces measured to dislodge the per-oral Flow 20 Pull Method, Entuit Thrive Balloon Retention, and button-type retention Ponsky replacement catheters were 35.6, 22.8, and 20.6 Newtons, respectively. The pull method per-oral gastrostomy catheter required significantly more pull force to dislodge than both the Ponsky button-type retention catheter and the Entuit balloon retention catheters. There was no significant difference in the pull force required to dislodge the Ponsky replacement catheter and the Entuit balloon retention catheter. Per-oral image-guided gastrostomy with pull-method button-type retention catheters may be the ideal choice in patients at high risk of tube dislodgment.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus fluoroscopic gastrostomy in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) sufferers with nutritional impairment: A meta-analysis of current studies.

Gastrostomy is recommended for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) patients with malnutrition. There are two main methods of gastrostomy insertion: Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) and Fluoroscopic Gastrostomy (FG). The latter included Radiologically Inserted Gastrostomy (RIG) and Per-oral Image-Guided Gastrostomy (PRG). A meta-analysis was conducted to compare these approaches in terms of survival outcomes, pain occurrence and success rate, through the literature search in PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. A total of 7 studies with 701 cases (322 in PEG, 264 in RIG and 115 in PRG) were enrolled in the final analysis. The lack of differences between the comparisons (PEG vs. PRG, PEG vs. RIG and PEG vs. PRG+RIG) on 30-day mortality and survival length was confirmed. For the pooling analysis of peri- and post-procedural complications, patients with PEG had a lower incidence of pain than cases with PRG and RIG together (P < 0.001). The same trends could be found when compared with PRG and RIG, separately (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively). And PEG showed a lower rate of successful attempts than PEG and RIG (P < 0.05). For other complications, we didn't find any differences. This meta-analysis demonstrates that PEG, PRG and RIG had their intrinsic advantages. The current evidences could not determine the preference of them. Further investigations should be done to reveal the most appropriate method for ALS patients.

Randomized Trial Comparing Radiologic Pigtail Gastrostomy and Peroral Image-Guided Gastrostomy: Intra- and Postprocedural Pain, Radiation Exposure, Complications, and Quality of Life

PurposeTo prospectively compare radiologically created pigtail gastrostomy (PG), in which the tube is inserted directly through the abdominal wall, versus peroral image-guided gastrostomy (POG), in which the tube is inserted through the mouth. Pain profiles (primary outcome measure), fluoroscopy times, total room times, technical success, complications, and quality of life (QOL) were measured. Materials and MethodsSixty patients were prospectively randomized to receive 14-F PG or 20-F POG tubes. All patients received prophylactically created gastrostomies before radiation therapy for head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma. Patients receiving palliative treatment were excluded, as were those with established pharyngeal obstruction. Pain was measured by numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for 6 weeks after the procedure and by intraprocedural fentanyl and midazolam doses and postprocedural 24-h morphine doses. Fluoroscopy times, total room times, technical success, complications up to 6 months, and gastrostomy-related QOL (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Enteral Feeding questionnaire) were determined. ResultsFifty-six patients underwent the randomized procedure. The POG group required significantly higher intraprocedural midazolam and fentanyl doses (mean, 1.2 mg and 67 μg, respectively, for PG vs 1.9 mg and 105 μg for POG; P < .001) and had significantly longer fluoroscopy times (mean, 1.3 min for PG vs 4.8 min for POG; P < .0001). NRS scores, morphine doses, total room times, technical success, complication rates, and QOL did not differ significantly between groups. The one major complication, a misplaced PG in the peritoneal cavity, followed a technical failure of POG creation. ConclusionsDespite the differences in insertion technique and tube caliber, the measured outcomes of POG and PG are comparable.

Gastrostomy in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ProGas): a prospective cohort study

SummaryBackgroundGastrostomy feeding is commonly used to support patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis who develop severe dysphagia. Although recommended by both the American Academy of Neurology and the European Federation of Neurological Societies, currently little evidence indicates the optimum method and timing for gastrostomy insertion. We aimed to compare gastrostomy insertion approaches in terms of safety and clinical outcomes.MethodsIn this large, longitudinal, prospective cohort study (ProGas), we enrolled patients with a diagnosis of definite, probable, laboratory supported, or possible amyotrophic lateral sclerosis who had agreed with their treating clinicians to undergo gastrostomy at 24 motor neuron disease care centres or clinics in the UK. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after gastrostomy. This study was registered on the UK Clinical Research Network database, identification number 9923.FindingsBetween Nov 2, 2010, and Jan 31, 2014, 345 patients were recruited of whom 330 had gastrostomy. 163 (49%) patients underwent percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, 121 (37%) underwent radiologically inserted gastrostomy, 43 (13%) underwent per-oral image-guided gastrostomy, and three (1%) underwent surgical gastrostomy. 12 patients (4%, 95% CI 2·1–6·2) died within the first 30 days after gastrostomy: five (3%) of 163 after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, four (3%) of 121 after radiologically inserted gastrostomy, and three (7%) of 43 after per-oral image-guided gastrostomy (p=0·46). Including repeat attempts in 14 patients, 21 (6%) of 344 gastrostomy procedures could not be completed: 11 (6%) of 171 percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies, seven (6%) of 121 radiologically inserted gastrostomies, and three (6%) of 45 per-oral image-guided gastrostomies (p=0·947).InterpretationThe three methods of gastrostomy seemed to be as safe as each other in relation to survival and procedural complications. In the absence of data from randomised trials, our findings could inform clinicians and patients in reaching decisions about gastrostomy and will stimulate further research into the nutritional management in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.FundingMotor Neurone Disease Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (MNDA) and the Sheffield Institute for Translational Neuroscience (SITraN).

Evaluation of two different methods for per-oral gastrostomy tube placement in patients with motor neuron disease (MND): PIG versus PEG procedures

Placement of a gastrostomy tube remains the gold standard procedure to maintain nutrition in patients with motor neuron disease (MND) and bulbar muscle weakness. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the most commonly used procedure in this context. Per-oral image guided gastrostomy (PIG) is a new hybrid technique used successfully in non-MND patients. We have modified the PIG technique to improve patient tolerability and have undertaken a pilot evaluation of PIG compared to PEG in MND patients. Nineteen PIG and 16 PEG procedures performed over a period of four years were evaluated. Pre-procedural forced vital capacity (FVC), procedural oxygen saturation, post-procedural complications and survival duration were recorded. Results showed that a gastrostomy tube was successfully placed in 95% of the PIG group and 80% of the PEG group. Rates of minor complications were comparable in both groups (21% in PIG, 23% in PEG). No life-threatening complications occurred in either group. Procedural mean oxygen saturations were higher in the PIG group compared to the PEG group (p < 0.001). No significant survival differences were observed. This study provides evidence for the use of the PIG procedure as a safe and well tolerated alternative to PEG in MND patients.

Survival analysis after gastrostomy: a single-centre, observational study comparing radiological and endoscopic insertion

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) using the pull through technique is the most widely used insertion method. An alternative is a per-oral image-guided gastrostomy (PIG), which may be advantageous in high-risk patients. As there are no large studies comparing PEG against PIG, we wished to analyse mortality after endoscopic or radiological gastrostomy insertion. Patients referred for a gastrostomy are prospectively included in a database along with demographic, biochemical and outcome data. Analysis of gastrostomy insertions from February 2004 to 2007 was performed with reference to method of insertion and 30-day outcome. Patients were subgrouped into cognitive impairment, dysphagic stroke, oropharygeal cancer, neurological cancer and other. One hundred and seventy PIGs and 233 PEGs were inserted (mean age 62 years, 268 males). There were no differences in age between the PIG and the PEG group. The PIG 30-day mortality was 26 of 170 (15.3%) and the PEG 30-day mortality was 25 of 233 (10.7%) (P=0.17). One-year mortality was 92 of 170 (54.1%) for PIG and 131 of 233 (56.7%) for PEG (P=0.60). Subgroup analysis revealed higher 30-day mortality in patients with nasopharyngeal cancer undergoing PIG; 14 of 106 (13.2%) versus one of 69 (1.4%) (P=0.005). However, PIG patients were older than PEG patients (mean age 64 vs. 59.7 years, P=0.019) and had more comorbidities (21.1% in the PEG group and 37.7% in the PIG group). Overall PIG and PEG seem to have similar 30-day and 1-year mortality rates. Our data suggest that clinicians may opt for either approach depending on technical considerations and local availability.

Per-oral image-guided insertion of a jejunostomy feeding tube

The benefits of feeding patients with dysphagia via gastrostomy have long been established.1,2 The commonest technique used is percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), as this allows relatively quick and easy placement of large diameter feeding tubes.3,4 However, endoscopic placement is anatomically impossible in some patients and not appropriate in others with respiratory compromise. Hence a radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) technique has developed.5,6 This procedure has a higher success rate, but allows the placement of only small diameter tubes that are more prone to occlusion.7,8 Recent advances in tube technology have enabled the development of a hybrid system, the per-oral image-guided gastrostomy (PIG). This allows a larger diameter, normally endoscopically inserted, gastrostomy tube to be placed radiologically without endoscopy.9,10 The technique combines the benefits of both the per-oral PEG and the RIG. Recent reviews have confirmed its superiority over the RIG in terms of better long-term patency and reduced risk of gastric leak, and over the previous gold standard, PEG, in terms of improved success rate.11

Gastrostomy Insertion: Comparing the Options—PEG, RIG or PIG?

AIM: To compare percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) with radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) and assess a hybrid gastrostomy technique (per-oral image-guided gastrostomy, PIG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty PEGs and 50 RIGs performed in three centres were prospectively compared and the endoscopic findings of 200 PEGs reviewed. A fluoroscopy-guided technique was modified to place 20 F over-the-wire PEG-tubes in 60 consecutive patients. RESULTS: Technical success was 98%, 100% and 100% for PEG, RIG and PIG, respectively. Antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced stoma infection for orally placed tubes ( p=0.02). Ten out of 50 (20%) small-bore RIG tubes blocked. Replacement tubes were required in six out of 50 PEGs (12%), 10 out of 50 RIGs (20%), but no PIGs ( p<0.001). No procedure-related complications occurred. The function of radiologically placed tubes was significantly improved with the larger PIG ( p<0.001), with similar wound infection rates. PIG was successful in 24 patients where endoscopic insertion could not be performed. Significant endoscopic abnormalities were found in 42 out of 200 PEG patients (21%), all related to peptic disease. Insignificant pathology was found in 8.5%. CONCLUSION: PIG combines advantages of both traditional methods with a higher success and lower re-intervention rate. Endoscopy is unlikely to detect clinically relevant pathology other than peptic disease. PIG is a very effective gastrostomy method; it has better long-term results than RIG and is successful where conventional PEG has failed.