Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement: A Single Center Experience

• Published in: Journal of digestive endoscopy Vol. 10; no. 3; pp. 150 - 154
• Main Authors: Gupta, Ankur, Singh, Anil K., Goel, Deepak, Gaind, Akash N., Mittal, Shireesh
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd 01.07.2019; Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd
• Subjects: endoscopy; enteral nutrition; gastrostomy; Original Article; peritonitis; postoperative complications; enteral nutrition; postoperative complications; endoscopy; gastrostomy; peritonitis
• ISSN: 0976-5042; 0976-5050
• DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3401391

Abstract Introduction  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is one of the recommended methods for providing enteral feeding in patients with swallowing difficulty and intact gastrointestinal tract. We review our three years of experience pertaining to PEG placement in our hospital. Methods  Records of all the patients, who underwent PEG between May 2014 to September 2017, were reviewed and relevant clinical and procedural details were noted. For all the patients, the procedure was conducted under antibiotic prophylaxis, moderate sedation, and local anesthesia. The PEG tube was placed by the “pull up” method. Telephonic follow-up of the patients was carried out after one month of study completion. Results  The PEG tube was placed in 73 patients (male 51 [69.9%]; age median [range] 67 [16–91] years). PEG was placed in 42 patients with stroke (57.6%), other neurologic disorders 17 (23.3%), coma due to head injury 5 (6.8%), and terminal malignancy 9 (12.3%). Technical success was achieved in 73 (97%) patients. Eleven procedure-related complications occurred in nine patients (15.5%) including one death due to peritonitis. Of the 57 patients, who could be followed-up after discharge, 41 died of their primary illness after 65 (1–751) days, nine were alive and continuing on PEG tube feed, and in seven PEG was removed because it was not needed. Conclusion  PEG is a useful procedure for enteral feeding. Although procedural success is high, it may be accompanied by significant complications.