ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVEGastrostomy tube placement can temporarily seed the peritoneal cavity with bacteria and thus theoretically increases the risk of shunt infection when the two procedures are performed contemporaneously. The authors hypothesized that gastrostomy tube placement would not increase the risk of ventriculoperitoneal shunt infection. The object of this study was to test this hypothesis by utilizing a large patient cohort combined from multiple institutions.METHODSA retrospective study of all adult patients admitted to five institutions with a diagnosis of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage between January 2005 and January 2015 was performed. The primary outcome of interest was ventriculoperitoneal shunt infection. Variables, including gastrostomy tube placement, were tested for their association with this outcome. Standard statistical methods were utilized.RESULTSThe overall cohort consisted of 432 patients, 47% of whom had undergone placement of a gastrostomy tube. The overall shunt infection rate was 9%. The only variable that predicted shunt infection was gastrostomy tube placement (p = 0.03, OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.07-4.08), which remained significant in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.04, OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.04-3.97). The greatest proportion of shunts that became infected had been placed more than 2 weeks (25%) and 1-2 weeks (18%) prior to gastrostomy tube placement, but the temporal relationship between shunt and gastrostomy was not a significant predictor of shunt infection.CONCLUSIONSGastrostomy tube placement significantly increases the risk of ventriculoperitoneal shunt infection.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Family history is crucial in stratifying patients' risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). Previous risk assessment tools developed for use in clinic or endoscopy settings have demonstrated suboptimal specificity for identifying patients with hereditary cancer syndromes. Our aim was to test the feasibility and performance of 2 family history surveys (paper and electronic) in individuals presenting for outpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: Patients presenting for outpatient colonoscopy at a tertiary care center were asked to complete a 5-question paper risk assessment survey (short paper survey) either alone or in conjunction with a second, comprehensive electronic family risk assessment survey (comprehensive tablet survey). Each subject's survey results, along with the electronic medical record, were reviewed, and 10 high-risk criteria and PREMM1,2,6 model scores (a predictive model for carrying a Lynch syndrome-associated gene mutation) were used to identify patients warranting genetic evaluation for suspected hereditary cancer syndromes. RESULTS: Six hundred patients completed the short paper survey (cohort 1), with an additional 100 patients completing both the short paper and comprehensive tablet survey (cohort 2). Using 10 high-risk criteria and/or a PREMM1,2,6 score ≥5%, we identified 10% and 9% of patients as high risk for CRC in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Of the 69 high-risk subjects, 23 (33%) underwent genetic evaluations and 7 (10%) carried germline mutations associated with cancer predisposition. Both patients and endoscopists reported the tools were user-friendly and helpful for CRC risk stratification. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic assessment of family history in colonoscopy patients is feasible and can help endoscopists identify high-risk patients who would benefit from genetic evaluation.
