Predicting outcomes and complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Background and study aims: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the preferred route for long-term enteral feeding. Our aims were to prospectively evaluate the outcome (”PEG status“) and complications of PEG and to determine whether these can be predicted by patients’ baseline characteristics.

Patients and methods: We conducted a prospective study in two tertiary hospitals between August 2003 and January 2005, enrolling all patients who were undergoing PEG placement. We completed a questionnaire with details of demographic data, diagnosis, indication for PEG, Charlson’s co-morbidity index, Barthel’s index, laboratory tests, complications, and date and cause of death. Patients were followed at scheduled appointments. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

Results: 168 patients (48 % male, 52 % female; mean age ± standard deviation 74 ± 16 years) underwent PEG using the pull technique. The main indication was neurogenic dysphagia (156 patients, 92.9 %). Although most indications were appropriate, in half the cases these were established too late. There were no procedure-related deaths. Major complications occurred in four patients (2.4 %); minor complications occurred in 52 patients (31 %). No single variable could predict complications. Fifteen patients (9 %) had the PEG removed. No single variable was independently associated with PEG removal. The mortality was 6.5 % at 30 days, 17.3 % at 90 days and 33.9 % at 1 year. The C-reactive protein was the only predictive factor of early mortality (≤ 30 days), and Charlson’s co-morbidity index was the only predictive factor of late mortality (> 30 days).

Conclusions: PEG placement is an easy and safe procedure, although it is often requested too late. No single variable could predict complications or PEG removal. C-reactive protein was found to be predictive of early mortality and Charlson’s index was predictive of late mortality.

References

• 1 Eisen G M, Baron T H, Dominitz J A. et al . Role of endoscopy in enteral feeding.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  55 794-797
• 2 Gauderer M W, Ponsky J L, Izant Jr R J. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique.  J Pediatr Surg. 1980;  15 872-875
• 3 Loser C, Aschl G, Hebuterne X. et al . ESPEN guidelines on artificial enteral nutrition: percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).  Clin Nutr. 2005;  24 848-861
• 4 Verhoef M J, Van Rosendaal G M. Patient outcomes related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement.  J Clin Gastroenterol. 2001;  32 49-53
• 5 Klose J, Heldwein W, Rafferzeder M. et al . Nutritional status and quality of life in patients with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in practice: prospective one-year follow-up.  Dig Dis Sci. 2003;  48 2057-2063
• 6 Kobayashi K, Cooper G S, Chak A. et al . A prospective evaluation of outcome in patients referred for PEG placement.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  55 500-506
• 7 Larson D E, Burton D D, Schroeder K W, DiMagno E P. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: indications, success, complications, and mortality in 314 consecutive patients.  Gastroenterology. 1987;  93 48-52
• 8 Loser C, Wolters S, Folsch U R. Enteral long-term nutrition via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in 210 patients: a four-year prospective study.  Dig Dis Sci. 1998;  43 2549-2557
• 9 Rimon E, Kagansky N, Levy S. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: evidence of different prognosis in various patient subgroups.  Age Ageing. 2005;  34 353-357
• 10 Naik A D, Abraham N S, Roche V M, Concato J. Predicting which patients can resume oral nutrition after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;  21 1155-1161
• 11 Charlson M E, Pompei P, Ales K L, MacKenzie C R. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.  J Chronic Dis. 1987;  40 373-383
• 12 Iucif Jr N, Rocha J S. Study of inequalities in hospital mortality using the Charlson comorbidity index [in Portuguese, English abstract].  Rev Saude Publica. 2004;  38 780-786
• 13 Martins M, Travassos C, Carvalho de Noronha J. Hospital information systems as risk adjustment in performance indicators [in Portuguese, English abstract].  Rev Saude Publica. 2001;  35 185-192
• 14 Mahoney F I, Barthel D W. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index.  Md State Med J. 1965;  14 61-65
• 15 Uyttenboogaart M, Stewart R E, Vroomen P C. et al . Optimizing cutoff scores for the Barthel index and the modified Rankin scale for defining outcome in acute stroke trials.  Stroke. 2005;  36 1984-1987
• 16 Angus F, Burakoff R. The percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube: medical and ethical issues in placement.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;  98 272-277
• 17 Chandu A, Smith A C, Douglas M. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients undergoing resection for oral tumors: a retrospective review of complications and outcomes.  J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;  61 1279-1284
• 18 Grant J P. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: initial placement by single endoscopic technique and long-term follow-up.  Ann Surg. 1993;  217 168-174
• 19 Sheehan J J, Hill A D, Fanning N P. et al . Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: 5 years of clinical experience on 238 patients.  Ir Med J. 2003;  96 265-267
• 20 Janes S E, Price C S, Khan S. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: 30-day mortality trends and risk factors.  J Postgrad Med. 2005;  51 23-28 (discussion: 8-9)
• 21 Onishi J, Kuzuya M, Sakaguchi H. Survival rate after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in a long-term care hospital.  Clin Nutr. 2004;  23 1248-1249