Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Risk factors and natural history of bedside percutaneous endoscopic versus fluoroscopy-guided gastrostomy tubes in intensive care unit patients.
Chau, Lucy Ching; Soheim, Ryan; Dix, Michael; Chung, Sarah; Obeid, Nadia; Hodari-Gupta, Arielle; Stanton, Cletus.
Afiliação
  • Chau LC; Department of Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA. lchau1@hfhs.org.
  • Soheim R; Department of Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
  • Dix M; Department of Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
  • Chung S; Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA.
  • Obeid N; Department of Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
  • Hodari-Gupta A; Department of Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
  • Stanton C; Department of Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
Surg Endosc ; 37(11): 8742-8747, 2023 11.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37563346
INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of literature comparing patients receiving bedside placed percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) versus fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous gastrostomy tubes (G-tube) in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting. This study aims to investigate and compare the natural history and complications associated with PEG versus fluoroscopic G-tube placement in ICU patients. METHODS: All adult patients admitted in the ICU requiring feeding tube placement at our center from 1/1/2017 to 1/1/2022 with at least 12-month follow up were identified through retrospective chart review. Adjusting for patient comorbidities, hospital factors, and indications for enteral access, a 1-to-2 propensity score matched Cox proportional-hazards model was fitted to evaluate the treatment effect of bedside PEG tube placement versus G-tube placement on patient 1-year complication, readmission, and death rates. Major complications were defined as those requiring operative or procedural intervention. RESULTS: This study included 740 patients, with 178 bedside PEG and 562 fluoroscopic G-tube placements. The overall rate of complication was 22.3% (13% PEG, 25.2% G-tube, P = 0.003). The major complication rate was 11.2% (8.5% PEG, 12.1% G-tube, P = 0.09). Most common complications were tube dysfunction (16.7% PEG; 39.4% G-tube; P = 0.04) and dislodgement (58.3% PEG; 40.8% G-tube). After propensity score matching, G-tube recipients had significantly increased risk for all-cause (HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.56-4.87, P < 0.001) and major complications (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.05-4.23, P = 0.035). There were no significant differences in 1-year rates of readmission (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58-1.38, P = 0.62) or death (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.70-1.44, P = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: The overall rate of complications for ICU patients requiring feeding tube in our cohort was 22.3%. ICU patients receiving fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement had significantly elevated risk of 1-year all-cause and major complications compared to those undergoing bedside PEG.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Gastrostomia / Unidades de Terapia Intensiva Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adult / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Gastrostomia / Unidades de Terapia Intensiva Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adult / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article