PERCUTANEOUS ENDOSCOPIC GASTROSTOMY IN CHILDREN ON PERITONEAL DIALYSIS
Department for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 1 University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany; Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Pädiatrische Nephrologie, 2 (APN) Correspondence to: C. von Schnakenburg, Department for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, University Hospitals, Mathildenstrasse 1, D-79106...
Saved in:
Published in | Peritoneal dialysis international Vol. 26; no. 1; pp. 69 - 77 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Milton, ON
Multimed
01.01.2006
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Department for Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine, 1 University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg,
Germany; Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Pädiatrische
Nephrologie, 2 (APN)
Correspondence to: C. von Schnakenburg, Department for Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine, University Hospitals, Mathildenstrasse 1, D-79106
Freiburg,
Germany. christian.schnakenburg{at}uniklinik-freiburg.de
Objective: Insertion of percutaneous endoscopic
gastrostomies (PEG) in patients on chronic peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been
reported to be contraindicated due to an increased risk of morbidity and
mortality. However, no systematic survey on this topic has yet been
published.
Design: Retrospective multicenter study.
Setting: 23 pediatric dialysis units associated with
the working group Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Pädiatrische
Nephrologie (APN).
Data Source: A structured questionnaire on clinical
details of PD patients who had undergone PEG insertion or open gastrostomy
(OG) since 1994 was distributed to all pediatric dialysis units of the
APN.
Results: 27 PD patients (20 males) from 12 centers in
whom PEG insertion was performed after Tenckhoff catheter introduction were
evaluated. Age at intervention ranged from 0.25 to 10.9 years (median 1.3
years). Most patients were malnourished, with standard deviation score (SDS)
for body weight between 4.2 and 0.6 (median2.2). Major
complications were early peritonitis <7 days after PEG in 10/27 (37%)
patients, episodes of fungal peritonitis in 7/27 (26%) patients, 4 cessations
of PD and change to hemodialysis, and 2 associated deaths. However, in 14
patients, no such problems were encountered and, in 4 patients, early
peritonitis effectively treated with intraperitoneal antibiotics was the only
major complication. Thus, in 18/27 (67%) patients, PD was successfully
reinitiated shortly after PEG insertion. Among all participating centers, only
two OG procedures were reported during the study period, illustrating a clear
preference for the PEG over the OG procedure among members of the APN.
Conclusion: PEG insertion following PD initiation
carries a high risk for fungal peritonitis and potential PD failure; however,
complication rates in this largest reported series were lower than previously
described. Antibiotic and antifungal prophylaxis, withholding PD for 2
3 days, and gastrostomy placement by an experienced endoscopy team are
suggested precautions for lowering the risk of associated complications. When
gastrostomy placement does not occur prior to or at the time of initiating PD,
the risks and benefits of percutaneous versus open placement must be carefully
weighed.
KEY WORDS: Enteral feeding; gastrostomy; peritonitis; percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; fungal infection.
Received 29 November 2004;
accepted 27 May 2005. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 0896-8608 1718-4304 |
DOI: | 10.1177/089686080602600111 |