Prophylactic Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Research Articles

Nutritional Support During Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer: The Role of Prophylactic Feeding Tube Placement

Significant weight loss and resultant malnutrition in patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck carcinomas are recognized and preventable clinical concerns. Morbidity related to weight loss during treatment may include dehydration, hospitalization, compromised treatment efficacy, and reduced quality of life and may impact survival. Malnutrition effects on wound healing may prolong recovery following treatment and increase the risk of morbidity for those undergoing subsequent salvage surgery. Multiple interventions have been implemented to help ameliorate the impact of treatment on weight loss and nutritional status, including the use of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. The value of prophylactic PEG tube placement at treatment initiation increasingly is being recognized, and evidence suggests that patients experience better outcomes. Criteria for patient selection have not been defined completely, and a great deal of variation in clinical practice exists, contributing to underuse of this supportive intervention. According to a literature review, patients who require therapeutic PEG tube placement in response to significant weight loss during treatment suffer greater morbidity than patients who receive PEG tubes prophylactically. Understanding patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related risk factors to systematically identify patients most likely to benefit from prophylactic PEG tube placement is an important aspect of nursing care.

The introducer technique is the optimal method for placing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in head and neck cancer patients

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are often placed in head and neck cancer patients to provide nutritional support, but studies have found the complication rates to be higher than other subsets of patients who undergo PEG placement. Complication rates as high as 50% have been reported, with the bulk of these complications being PEG site issues (i.e., cellulitis, abscess, fascitis, and tumor implantation). Because the pull technique has been the primary technique used, the theory is that the transoral tube passage is the source of the complications in these patients. Alternatively, the introducer technique uses a transabdominal approach to place the device, avoiding any tube contamination by upper aerodigestive organisms or tumor cells. At our institution, this technique has been used exclusively for head and neck cancer patients and this article reports our experience. One hundred forty-nine head and neck cancer patients who had a prophylactic PEG tube placed were reviewed from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003. The rates of placement success, morbidity, and complications were determined. Successful placement was achieved in 148 (99%) patients without any PEG-related deaths. Overall, 17 complications (11%) occurred, with only one major complication (0.7%) identified. PEG site infections were uncommon with only five cases (3.4%) and all were mild cellulitis. The introducer technique is the safest method for PEG tube placement in head and neck cancer patients. The overall rate of complications is low and PEG site infectious complications are rare. The introducer technique should be the method of choice for PEG tubes in head and neck cancer patients.

Safety and effectiveness of prophylactic gastrostomy tubes for head and neck cancer patients undergoing chemoradiation

We would like to assess the safety and effectiveness of prophylactic percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube feedings during concurrent chemoradiation for head and neck cancer. Patients who underwent chemotherapy and radiation for head and neck malignancies were evaluated for their ability to resume oral feeding following treatment. All patients underwent PEG tube placement prior to the treatment because of the expected mucositis. Gastrostomy tubes were removed following treatment when the patients were able to resume oral feedings without aspiration. Between March 1999 and 2006, 104 patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer underwent concurrent chemotherapy and radiation. One patient declined placement of gastrostomy tube. Ninety patients (86%) developed grade 3-4 mucositis during chemoradiation. Five patients died during treatment from aspiration pneumonia and sepsis. One hundred two patients lost weight during treatment. The mean and median weight loss during concurrent therapy was, respectively, 8.5 and 8 kg (1-23.5 kg). Following treatment, tube feedings were continued 1-41 months (mean: 8 months; median: 5 months) because of continued weight loss, chronic dysphagia, or aspiration. At a median follow-up of 19 months (1-62 months), no patient developed serious complications from tube feedings. Dysphagia resulting from the severe mucositis produced severe weight loss, despite tube feedings. Gastrostomy tube feedings are safe. Gastrostomy tubes should be placed prophylactically for patients undergoing chemoradiation for head and neck cancer.