Early versus late tube feeding initiation after PEG tube placement: Does time to feeding matter?

BACKGROUND: Variation exists in the timing of tube feed initiation after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement. The aim of our study was to review outcomes of early tube feed (ETF) versus late tube feed (LTF) initiation after PEG tube placement. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all trauma patients who underwent PEG tube placement from 1/2014 to 12/2018. ETF was defined as initiation < 24 h and LTF > 24 h after placement. The primary outcome measure was feeding intolerance and secondary outcomes included post-operative complications. All statistical analyses were performed using standard statistical methods (e.g. Pearson's Chi-squared, Fisher's exact and Mann Whitney-U tests). RESULTS: There were 295 patients (164 ETF and 131 LTF) that received a PEG tube at our level 1 trauma center. There was no difference with feeding intolerance at 12 h (5% vs. 4%; p = 0.88), 24 h (1% vs. 2%; p = 1.00), and 48 h (4% vs. 4%; p = 1.00). There was no difference when comparing intolerance symptoms such as nausea and vomiting (1% vs. 2%; p = 0.79), abdominal tenderness (2% vs. 3%; p = 0.76), high gastric residuals (2% vs. 2%; p = 1.00) and aspiration (0% vs. 2%; p = 0.39). There was no difference when comparing post-operative complications (4% vs. 8%; p = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Early tube feeding after PEG placement is safe and equivalent to late tube feeding in the adult trauma population. Future prospective studies are warranted to establish the optimal timing for initiation of tube feeds after PEG tube placement.

Nuclear accumulation of p53 in colorectal adenocarcinoma: prognostic importance differs with race and location of the tumor.

BACKGROUND: Although several studies have been conducted to examine the role of p53 genetic abnormalities and their prognostic value in colorectal carcinoma, the incidence of nuclear accumulation of p53 and the prognostic importance of nuclear accumulation of p53 in African-American and white patients have not been investigated separately. Therefore, the authors evaluated the prognostic significance of p53 nuclear accumulation in these two racial groups. METHODS: Nuclear accumulation of p53 was evaluated immunohistochemically in archival tissue specimens from 204 African-American and 300 white patients with primary colorectal adenocarcinomas who had undergone surgery. Survival times from colorectal adenocarcinoma were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and the Cox proportional hazards model for nuclear accumulation of p53 with adjustments for other confounding demographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: Approximately equivalent proportions of distal (54%) and proximal adenocarcinomas (47%) were positive for nuclear accumulation of p53 in African-American patients. In contrast, distal colorectal adenocarcinomas from white patients more frequently were positive for nuclear accumulation of p53 than adenocarcinomas of the proximal colon (63% vs. 38%, respectively). Nuclear accumulation of p53 was found to be a strong predictor of poor survival in white patients (hazard ratio = 6.77; P = 0.0001) but not in African-American patients with primary adenocarcinomas of the proximal colon. Nuclear accumulation of p53 was not of prognostic value in patients of either race with primary adenocarcinomas of the distal colorectum. CONCLUSIONS: Nuclear accumulation of p53 is a valuable indicator of poor prognosis only for white patients with adenocarcinomas of the proximal colon. The current study also suggests that the role of p53 dysregulation in colorectal adenocarcinomas may vary with the anatomic location of the tumor and the race of the patient. These findings suggest that the demographic characteristics of patients should be considered in the evaluation of prognostic markers of colorectal neoplasia.