A retrospective study of outcomes and the validation of the Sheffield Gastrostomy Score in PEGs, RIGs and PIGs.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited studies comparing the safety and effectiveness of Radiologically Assisted Gastrostomies (RAGs) against Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomies (PEGs). The Sheffield Gastrostomy Score (SGS) can be used to help predict 30-day mortality, more information is needed on its validity in RAGs. Our aim is to compare mortality between RAGs (Radiologically Inserted Gastrostomies (RIGs) and Per-oral Image Guided Gastrostomies (PIGs)) with PEGs and validate the SGS. METHOD: Data on gastrostomies newly inserted in three hospitals from 2016-2019 were retrospectively collected. Demographics, indication, insertion date, date of death, inpatient status and blood tests (albumin, CRP and eGFR) were recorded. RESULTS: 1977 gastrostomies were performed: Gastrostomy mortality at 7 days was 1.3% and at 30 days was 6%. There was a 5% 30-day mortality for PEGs, 5.5% RIGs, 7.2% PIGs (p = 0.215). Factors increasing 30 day mortality were age ≥60 years (p = 0.039), albumin <35 g/L (p = 0.005), albumin <25 g/L (p < 0.001) and CRP ≥10 mg/L (p < 0.001). For patients who died within 30 days; 0.6% had an SGS of 0, 3.7% = 1, 10.2% = 2 and 25.5% = 3, with similar trends for RAGs and PEGs. ROC curves showed the area under the curve for all gastrostomies, RAGs and PEGs as 0.743, 0.738, 0.787 respectively. DISCUSSION: There was no significant difference between 30-day mortality for PEGs, RIGs and PIGs. Factors predicting risk include age ≥60 years, albumin <35 g/L, albumin <25 g/L and CRP ≥10 mg/L. The SGS has been validated in this study for PEGs and for the first time in RAGs as well..

To PEG or not to PEG that is the question.

Nutrition support involves the use of oral supplements, enteral tube feeding or parenteral nutrition. These interventions are considered when oral intake alone fails to meet nutritional requirements. Special diets and oral supplements are usually the first approach to managing malnutrition; however, their role becomes limited when oral intake is restricted or if swallowing is unsafe. Enteral tube feeding or parenteral nutrition are alternative means of providing nutrition support for this select group of patients. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding was introduced into clinical practice in 1980. It describes a feeding tube placed directly into the stomach under endoscopic guidance. It is an established means of providing enteral nutrition to those who have functionally normal gastrointestinal tracts, but who cannot meet their nutritional requirements due to inadequate oral intake. The intervention is usually reserved when nutritional intake is likely to be inadequate for more than 4-6 weeks. Although the benefits of PEG have been shown for a select group of patients, there currently exists concerns about the increasing frequency of this intervention, and also uncertainty about the long-term benefits for certain patients. The 2004 UK National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death report emphasised this concern, with almost a fifth of PEG being undertaken for futile indications that negatively influenced morbidity and mortality. The present review paper discusses the indications for, controversies surrounding and complications of gastrostomy feeding and provides practical advice on optimising patient selection for this intervention.