|
|
|||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
|||
|
Shiro Yokohama, Masaru Aoshima, Department of Gastroenterology, Asahikawa Rehabilitation Hospital, Asahikawa 078-8801, Japan Junya Shindo, Department of Rehabilitation, Asahikawa Rehabilitation Hospital, Asahikawa 078-8801, Japan Junichi Maruyama, Department of Internal Medicine, Asahikawa Rehabilitation Hospital, Asahikawa 078-8801, Japan Yukiomi Nakade, Masashi Yoneda, Division of Gastro-enterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Aichi Medical University School of Medicine, Aichi 480-1195, Japan Author contributions: Yokohama S performed the majority of research; Yokohama S and Aoshima M designed research; Yokohama S, Shindo J and Maruyama J analyzed data; Yokohama S, Nakade Y and Yoneda M wrote the paper. Correspondence to: Dr. Shiro Yokohama, Department of Gastroenterology, Asahikawa Rehabilitation Hospital, Midorigaoka Higashi 1-1-1-1, Asahikawa 078-8801, Japan. s44yokohama11@reha.or.jp Telephone: +81-166-650101 Fax: +81-166-682459 Received: December 24, 2008 Revised: January 22, 2009 Accepted: January 29, 2009 Published online: March 21, 2009
Abstract AIM: To investigate and predict enteral nutrition problems after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data for 252 out of 285 patients who underwent PEG at our hospital from 1999 to 2008. Enteral nutrition problems after PEG were defined as: (1) patients who required ≥ 1 mo after surgery to switch to complete enteral nutrition, or who required additional parenteral alimentation continuously; or (2) patients who abandoned switching to enteral nutrition using the gastrostoma and employed other nutritional methods. We attempted to identify the predictors of problem cases by using a logistic regression analysis that examined the patients’ backgrounds and the specific causes that led to their problems.
RESULTS: Mean age of the patients was 75 years, and in general, their body weight was low and their overall condition was markedly poor. Blood testing revealed that patients tended to be anemic and malnourished. A total of 44 patients (17.5%) were diagnosed as having enteral nutrition problems after PEG. Major causes of the problems included pneumonia, acute enterocolitis (often Clostridium difficile-related), paralytic ileus and biliary tract infection. A multivariate analysis identified the following independent predictors for problem cases: (1) enteral nutrition before gastrectomy (a risk reduction factor); (2) presence of esophageal hiatal hernia; (3) past history of paralytic ileus; and (4) presence of chronic renal dysfunction.
CONCLUSION: Enteral nutrition problems after PEG occurred at a comparatively high rate. Patient background analysis elucidated four predictive factors for the problem cases.
© 2009 The WJG Press and Baishideng. All rights reserved.
Key words: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; Enteral nutrition; Complication, Risk factor; Predictor
Peer reviewers: Nick P Thompson, MD, Department of Medicine, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE7 7DN, Unite Kingdom; Takayuki Yamamoto, MD, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Yokkaichi Social Insurance Hospital, 10-8 Hazuyamacho, Yokkaichi 510-0016, Japan
Yokohama S, Aoshima M, Nakade Y, Shindo J, Maruyama J, Yoneda M. Investigation and prediction of enteral nutrition problems after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15(11): 1367-1372 Available from: URL: http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/15/1367.asp DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.15.1367
INTRODUCTION Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) was first introduced by Gauderer et al in 1980[1]. Since that time, it has become one of the most useful and established enteral nutrition techniques performed at treatment centers. Compared to the use of a nasogastric tube, enteral nutrition using a PEG tube offers numerous advantages, including reduced laryngopharyngeal discomfort and a lower risk of aspiration lung disease[2,3]. When performing PEG, the associated risks must always be kept in mind. While various devices have been developed[4,5], the frequency of adverse events is higher as compared to other nutritional methods, since PEG is based on a surgical technique[6-8]. Additionally, even if PEG is successful, patients often encounter enteral nutrition problems after surgery. We investigated and analyzed the etiology of these problems in patients seen at our hospital.
MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients and gastrostomy Of the 285 patients who underwent PEG at our center from April 1999 to April 2008, we were able to statistically analyze the data for 252 subjects (157 males, 95 females). Our center admits many elderly patients who present poor general conditions in addition to having problems with ingesting food orally. PEG is primarily performed in the gastroenterology department after a request from a different department. After PEG is scheduled, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is performed preoperatively in all cases, and abdominal computed tomography (CT) is carried out as needed in order to ascertain whether PEG can be done. If patients are taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet agents, a drug-free period is established, which depends on the type of drug being taken. All patients in the present study underwent gastrostomy using the pull method[1]. With the exception of one patient, no sutures were used to fix the abdominal and gastric walls at the gastrostomy site. In general, antibiotics were administered intravenously for 3 d following PEG. Two days after surgery, lukewarm water was injected, followed by injection of enteral nutrients starting 4 d after the surgery. A switch to enteral nutrition using the PEG tube was initiated 7-10 d after surgery. At our clinical center, we have been using PEG clinical paths since June 2003.
Data analysis In the present study, patients were considered to have a problem with enteral nutrition after PEG if they met one of the following criteria: (1) patients who required ≥ 1 mo after surgery to switch to complete enteral nutrition, or who required additional parenteral alimentation continuously; or (2) patients who abandoned switching to enteral nutrition using the gastrostoma and employed other nutritional methods. The data on the patients’ backgrounds and suspected reasons for their problems were collected and used for further analysis. To analyze the predictors among the problem cases, we chose 26 candidates that we believed could possibly have an influence on the postoperative enteral nutrition (Table 1). Binomial logistic regression analysis was performed using statistical software (SPSS Base 11.0j and SPSS Regression Models 9.0J; SPSS Japan Inc., Tokyo, Japan), with the presence or absence of enteral nutrition problems after PEG employed as the dependent variable. Since it was necessary to analyze numerous factors, univariate analysis was conducted to narrow down the candidates based on the significance probability (P < 0.1). Independent predictors were determined by conducting multivariate analysis based on a step-down procedure that used likelihood ratios. Subsequently, after subjects were grouped in relation to each predictor, problem characteristics were investigated.
RESULTS Patients’ background factors Table 2 shows the background factors for the 252 patients. Mean age of the patients was 75 years (range, 38-99 years), with men making up approximately 60% of the group. As to the general physical conditions, body weight was low and overall condition was markedly poor. Blood testing revealed that the patients tended to be anemic and malnourished prior to gastrostomy. There were inflammatory reactions in many patients. Cerebrovascular disorders accounted for about 70% of the underlying diseases. Even though the majority of the patients had central nervous system diseases, disuse syndrome and senile dementia were also noted. PEG was performed for enteral nutrition in all patients.
Cases of enteral nutrition problems after PEG A total of 44 (17.5%) out of 252 patients exhibited enteral nutrition problems after PEG. There were 33 cases that met criterion (1), and three cases required continuous supportive parenteral alimentation. In 30 of these cases, the mean number of days required to switch to enteral nutrition was 69 ± 31 (mean ± SD) d (range 32-145 d). Eleven cases met criterion (2). Table 3 shows causes of the enteral nutrition problems for each of the criteria. Although various events were confirmed, pneumonia, paralytic ileus, acute enterocolitis and biliary tract infection were the most frequently seen in both criterion groups. In the pneumonia and acute enterocolitis patients, aspiration pneumonia and Clostridium difficile-associated enteric disease (CDED) accounted for the majority of the cases, respectively. For criterion (2), aggravation of chronic renal dysfunction and heart failure were noted.
Statistical analysis In 252 patients, univariate analysis was performed for each of the 26 factors with the presence or absence of enteral nutrition problems after PEG used as the dependent variable (Table 1). Candidate predictors were narrowed down to the following: “enteral nutrition before gastrectomy”; “hemoglobin level the day before gastrostomy”; “albumin level the day before gastrectomy”; “presence of esophageal hiatal hernia”; “past history of paralytic ileus”; “past history of aspiration pneumonia”; and “presence of chronic renal dysfunction”. A step-down procedure that employed likelihood ratios was used for the seven items subjected to multivariate analysis. The following four factors were identified as independent predictors for cases with enteral nutrition problems after PEG: (1) enteral nutrition before gastrectomy; (2) presence of esophageal hiatal hernia; (3) past history of paralytic ileus; and (4) presence of chronic renal dysfunction (Table 4). The sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy using the prediction model were 30.0%, 97.0% and 85.8%, respectively. After the deletion of unselected factors, the sensitivity and overall accuracy were improved.
Investigation of each predictor Table 5 summarizes the actual causes of the patients’ problems for each predictor. Because enteral nutrition before gastrectomy is a risk reduction factor, we decided to investigate cases of parenteral alimentation before PEG. While pneumonia accounted for about 30% of the problems, paralytic ileus, acute enterocolitis and biliary tract infection were also noted. In the enteral nutrition group, blood albumin and hemoglobin levels prior to gastrectomy were significantly higher than those seen in parenteral alimentation group [mean ± SD; albumin level (g/dL): 3.3 ± 0.4 versus 3.1 ± 0.4, P < 0.001; hemoglobin level (g/dL): 11.9 ± 1.7 versus 11.1 ± 1.6, P < 0.001; unpaired t-test]. In cases with esophageal hiatal hernia, pneumonia accounted for about 45% of the problems. In addition, the majority of these cases were caused by aspiration. On the other hand, in cases with a past history of paralytic ileus, the most frequent cause was a recurrence of ileus. Similarly, in cases with chronic renal dysfunction, an aggravation of chronic renal dysfunction accounted for about 30% of the cases.
DISCUSSION Although predictors for postoperative enteral nutrition problems can be used to determine indications for PEG, there are no studies that have specifically examined these factors. In the current study, most patients were elderly and suffering from cerebrovascular disorders or dementia, and their general condition was markedly poor. Due to long-term recumbency and undernutrition, these patients had various infections. The current report presents useful information for gastroenterologists who perform PEG in patients with similar backgrounds. The enteral nutrition problems that occurred after PEG were defined according to previously described criteria. We excluded cases in which there was switching to enteral nutrition within 1 mo after PEG, as we believe that there are few disadvantages for such patients. We also excluded cases where the reason for the problem was unclear, even if these patients required longer than 1 mo to switch to enteral nutrition. Our results demonstrated that enteral nutrition problems after PEG occurred at a comparatively high rate. Although various causes were confirmed, few cases were determined to be a direct complication of PEG. For both of the inclusion criteria, pneumonia occurred most frequently, although enterocolitis, paralytic ileus and biliary tract infection were also noted. Aspiration pneumonia accounted for the majority of the pneumonia cases. We also noted that cerebrovascular disorders accounted for approximately 70% of the underlying diseases. It is possible that dysphagia may promote aspiration in these patients. In and by itself, paralytic ileus can cause enteral nutrition problems. Furthermore, it may also promote or aggravate aspiration pneumonia, as bowel paralysis induces vomiting or gastrointestinal reflux[9]. In acute enterocolitis patients, CDED accounted for the majority of the cases. CDED is a drug (antibiotics)-induced enteric disease and we have previously reported that CDED can occur, with onset of the disease noted soon after the PEG procedure[10]. In this study, we confirmed that the CDED that occurred after PEG was able to interrupt enteral nutrition over a long period of time. In almost all cases of biliary tract infection, stones or sludge were noted in the gallbladder. Other studies have reported that when patients are switched to enteral nutrition from parenteral alimentation, there is an increase in choleresis, along with a sudden contraction of the gallbladder[11,12]. These events may promote obstruction and infection within the bile duct system. We attempted to determine predictors for problem cases and our results indicated that only enteral nutrition before PEG was a risk reduction factor. Our analysis demonstrated there was a small but significant probability that preoperative enteral nutrition strongly inhibited enteral nutrition problems after PEG. As compared to parenteral alimentation, enteral nutrition offers the following advantages: (1) maintains a favorable and natural alimentation; (2) maintains gastrointestinal function; and (3) provides a check on the safety of enteral nutrition prior to the PEG procedure[13-15]. Actually, we noted that aspiration pneumonia after vomiting or gastrointestinal disorder occurred in cases of preoperative parenteral alimentation. In addition, there was one patient after the PEG procedure who was afflicted by a central-venous-catheter-caused infection. Our results also showed that blood albumin and hemoglobin levels prior to gastrectomy were significantly higher in the enteral nutrition group. Therefore, if parenteral alimentation cases are scheduled for PEG, the procedure should be performed after switching to enteral nutrition. Among the three risk factors examined, the presence of an esophageal hiatal hernia had the strongest association with the enteral nutrition problems that are found after PEG. In these cases, pneumonia accounted for about 45% of the causes, with the majority of the pneumonia cases occurring due to aspiration. Previous studies have shown that aspiration is a complication of esophageal hiatal hernia and gastroesophageal reflux disease[16]. Recently, Kitamura et al reported that esophageal hiatal hernia was a risk factor for aspiration pneumonia after PEG[17]. Our results indicate that preoperative upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is important for predicting enteral nutrition problems after PEG. After PEG, the posture of patients with esophageal hiatal hernia needs to be evaluated during nutrition. In addition, in such situations, it may also be necessary to consider using half-solid enteral nutrients[18-20]. In patients with a past history of paralytic ileus, the recurrence of ileus accounted for about 40% of the causes. As chronic bowel dysfunction plays a role in the background of idiopathic paralytic ileus, its recurrence is not all that rare[21]. In such cases, a rapid increase of enteral nutrient after PEG may be responsible for the recurrent paralytic ileus. When there is coadministration of enterokinesis activators or gradual increases of enteral nutrients, this may prevent such recurrences[22,23]. In cases with chronic renal dysfunction, an aggravation of renal dysfunction or heart failure accounted for about 60% of the causes. In most cases, there was an eventual discontinuation of the enteral nutrition after PEG. Therefore, in patients with poor renal function, the indication for PEG needs to be very carefully investigated. In addition, after performing PEG in such cases, it is necessary to finely control the infusions and medications by performing frequent blood or X-ray tests. Previous studies have reported that patients with diabetes or low body weight have a high frequency of complications[24,25]. However, body mass index, fasting blood sugar levels and the presence of diabetes mellitus were not identified as predictors of enteral nutrition problems after PEG. In the present study, most patients were elderly, displayed a markedly poor general condition and tended to be underweight, malnourished and anemic. A bias in patient background factors may also have affected our analysis. Based on the mean preoperative blood glucose levels, it is also quite possible that a stricter control of the diabetes could have suppressed an increased number of adverse events. Although our univariate analysis indicated that blood albumin and hemoglobin levels obtained on the day before PEG could be regarded as strong candidates, both were excluded by multivariate analysis. In the enteral nutrition group, blood albumin and hemoglobin levels obtained the day before gastrectomy were significantly higher than those found in the parenteral alimentation group. Therefore, the relevance of these factors may have affected our current analysis.
CONCLUSION Enteral nutrition problems after PEG occurred at a comparatively high rate. Analysis of patient background factors elucidated four predictors for these problem cases. Since characteristic causes exist for these respective predictors, it may be possible to analyze causal relationships and mechanisms of onset, thereby making it possible to devise several preventative methods.
COMMENTS Background Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has become one of the most useful and established enteral nutrition techniques. However, since PEG is based on a surgical technique and is mainly performed in elderly individuals with poor general conditions, the frequency of adverse events is higher compared to other methods of nutrition. Even if PEG is successful, patients often encounter enteral nutrition problems after surgery. Research frontiers Although knowledge of predictors of postoperative enteral nutrition problems may provide useful information, there are no studies that have specifically examined such predictors. The authors investigated the etiology of these problems, and tried to predict enteral nutrition problems after PEG. Innovations and breakthroughs The authors showed that enteral nutrition problems after PEG occurred at a comparatively high rate. Analysis of patient background factors elucidated the following four predictors for these problem cases: (1) enteral nutrition before gastrectomy; (2) presence of esophageal hiatal hernia; (3) past history of paralytic ileus; and (4) presence of chronic renal dysfunction. Applications Predictors for postoperative enteral nutrition problems can be used to determine indications for PEG. Since specific causes exist for these predictors, it may be possible to analyze causal relationships and mechanisms of onset, thereby making it possible to devise several preventive methods. Peer review This study reports a large number of patients with PEGs and identifies factors that seem to predict failure of enteral nutrition. This is likely to be of interest to readers and provides some novel data. In addition, the discussion gives some ideas about how to address individual patients with poor prognostic factors.
REFERENCES 1 Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ Jr. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 1980; 15: 872-875 PubMed DOI 2 Ponsky JL, Gauderer MW, Stellato TA. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Review of 150 cases. Arch Surg 1983; 118: 913-914 PubMed 3 Thatcher BS, Ferguson DR, Paradis K. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a preferred method of feeding tube gastrostomy. Am J Gastroenterol 1984; 79: 748-750 PubMed 4 Russell TR, Brotman M, Norris F. Percutaneous gastrostomy. A new simplified and cost-effective technique. Am J Surg 5 Ponsky JL, Gauderer MW. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: indications, limitations, techniques, and results. World J Surg 1989; 13: 165-170 PubMed DOI 6 Nicholson FB, Korman MG, Richardson MA. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a review of indications, complications and outcome. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2000; 15: 21-25 PubMed DOI 7 Gauderer MW. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and the evolution of contemporary long-term enteral access. Clin Nutr 2002; 21: 103-110 PubMed DOI 8 Dharmarajan TS, Unnikrishnan D, Pitchumoni CS. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and outcome in dementia. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 2556-2563 PubMed DOI 9 Roberts JR, Shyr Y, Christian KR, Drinkwater D, Merrill W. Preemptive gastrointestinal tract management reduces aspiration and respiratory failure after thoracic operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000; 119: 449-452 PubMed 10 Yokohama S, Aoshima M, Asama T, Shindo J, Maruyama J. Clostridium difficile-associated enteric disease after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. J Gastroenterol 2009; 44: 121-125 PubMed 11 Ledeboer M, Masclee AA, Biemond I, Lamers CB. Effect of intragastric or intraduodenal administration of a polymeric diet on gallbladder motility, small-bowel transit time, and hormone release. Am J Gastroenterol 1998; 93: 2089-2096 12 Ledeboer M, Masclee AA, Biemond I, Lamers CB. Gallbladder motility and cholecystokinin secretion during continuous enteral nutrition. Am J Gastroenterol 1997; 92: 2274-2279 PubMed 13 Jeejeebhoy KN. Enteral nutrition versus parenteral nutrition--the risks and benefits. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 14 Zaloga GP. Parenteral nutrition in adult inpatients with functioning gastrointestinal tracts: assessment of outcomes. Lancet 2006; 367: 1101-1111 PubMed DOI 15 Tappenden KA. Mechanisms of enteral nutrient-enhanced intestinal adaptation. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: S93-S99 16 Bozymski EM. Pathophysiology and diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Hosp Pharm 1993; 50: S4-S6 17 Kitamura T, Nakase H, Iizuka H. Risk factors for aspiration pneumonia after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Gerontology 2007; 53: 224-227 PubMed DOI 18 Scolapio JS. Decreasing aspiration risk with enteral feeding. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2007; 17: 711-716 19 d'Escrivan T, Guery B. Prevention and treatment of aspiration pneumonia in intensive care units. Treat Respir Med 20 Kanie J, Suzuki Y, Akatsu H, Kuzuya M, Iguchi A. Prevention of late complications by half-solid enteral nutrients in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube feeding. Gerontology 2004; 50: 417-419 PubMed DOI 21 Lacy BE, Weiser K. Gastrointestinal motility disorders: an update. Dig Dis 2006; 24: 228-242 PubMed DOI 22 Panganamamula KV, Parkman HP. Chronic Intestinal Pseudo-Obstruction. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2005; 8: 3- 23 Scolapio JS, Ukleja A, Bouras EP, Romano M. Nutritional management of chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction. J Clin Gastroenterol 1999; 28: 306-312 PubMed DOI 24 Amann W, Mischinger HJ, Berger A, Rosanelli G, Schweiger W, Werkgartner G, Fruhwirth J, Hauser H. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). 8 years of clinical experience in 232 patients. Surg Endosc 1997; 11: 741-744 PubMed 25 Lee JH, Kim JJ, Kim YH, Jang JK, Son HJ, Peck KR, Rhee PL, Paik SW, Rhee JC, Choi KW. Increased risk of peristomal wound infection after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with diabetes mellitus. Dig Liver Dis 2002; 34:
S- Editor Tian L L- Editor Negro F E- Editor Lin YP
| |||
|
|
