IIntroduction: patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) require nutritional support, in most cases with enteral nutrition through gastrostomy, either endoscopic (PEG) or radiological (PRG). Objectives: to analyze the characteristics of patients with ALS at the time of PEG/PRG placement, and to compare the efficacy and safety of PRG versus PEG. Methods: a retrospective descriptive study. All patients with ALS who required gastrostomy in the last 3 years (2021-2023) in our hospital were recruited (4 PEG and 6 PRG). Demographic and nutritional parameters were analyzed. Results: ten patients were included, with an average age of 57 years. All patients presented with dysphagia and received oral or tube supplements prior to gastrostomy placement. The average duration of enteral nutrition was approximately 50 months, with a mortality rate of 30 % at 12 months after gastrostomy. The success rate of PEG and PRG was similar, with no complications. All patients developed deterioration of respiratory function, even after nutritional support. Conclusion: gastrostomy should be indicated as soon as a patient is at risk of aspiration pneumonia or when weight loss begins. Although the nutritional benefit of gastrostomy is well established, there is currently a delay between diagnosis and placement of approximately 4 years. PRG appears to be safer than PEG in patients with ALS and respiratory failure.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are commonly utilized to establish access to enteral nutrition. However, data comparing the outcomes of PEG vs. PRG are conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an updated systemic review and meta-analysis comparing PRG and PEG outcomes.

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched until February 24, 2023. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, tube leakage, tube dislodgement, perforation, and peritonitis. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, infectious complications, and aspiration pneumonia. All analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software.

The initial search revealed 872 studies. Of these, 43 of these studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis. Of 471,208 total patients, 194,399 received PRG and 276,809 received PEG. PRG was associated with higher odds of 30-day mortality when compared to PEG (odds ratio (OR): 1.205, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.015 - 1.430, I2 = 55%). In addition, tube leakage and tube dislodgement were higher in the PRG group than in PEG (OR: 2.231, 95% CI: 1.184 - 4.2 and OR: 2.602, 95% CI: 1.911 - 3.541, respectively). Perforation, peritonitis, bleeding, and infectious complications were higher with PRG than PEG.

PEG is associated with lower 30-day mortality, tube leakage, and tube dislodgement rates than PRG.

We aimed to describe and compare the complications associated with different percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) techniques.

A retrospective and prospective observational study was conducted. Patients who underwent a PRG between 1995-2020 were included.

A pigtail catheter was used until 2003, a balloon catheter without pexy was used between 2003-2009 and a balloon catheter with gastropexy was used between 2015-2021. For the comparison of proportions, X² tests or Fisher's test were used when necessary. Univariate analysis was performed to study the risk factors for PRG-associated complications.

n = 330 (pigtail = 114, balloon-type without pexy = 28, balloon-type with pexy = 188). The most frequent indication was head and neck cancer. The number of patients with complications was 44 (38.5%), 11 (39.2%) and 54 (28,7%), respectively. There were seven (25%) cases of peritonitis in the balloon-type without-pexy group and 1 (0.5%) in the balloon-type with-pexy group, the latter being the only patient who died in the total number of patients (0.3%). Two (1%) patients of the balloon-type with-pexy group presented with gastrocolic fistula. The rest of the complications were minor.

The most frequent complications associated with the administration of enteral nutrition through PRG were minor and the implementation of the balloon-type technique with pexy has led to a decrease in them.

PEG (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy) is a well established endoscopic procedure for enteral feeding. However, patients with a shorter life expectancy will not benefit from PEG tube placement. Furthermore, some specific evolving diseases will never benefit from PEG. The aim of the study focuses on short and long term mortality rates after PEG tube placement in a referral gastroenterology centre (Geneva University Hospital). 219 patients were enrolled in this study.

All patients scheduled for a PEG procedure between January 2011 and December 2014 were included. Nine patient parameters were collected for further analysis as well as the main underlying disease requiring PEG tube placement. Patients were subsequently divided into 4 groups according to underlying disease: Group 1) swallowing disorders of neurologic origin; Group 2) swallowing disorders associated with upper digestive tract neoplasia ; Group 3) nutritional support for a non GI reason ; Group 4) Other.

219 patients had undergone a PEG tube placement. 33 patients died within 60 days after the procedure. After one year, 71 patients died. Global survival was 870 days. The nutritional support group had the better survival rate with 1276 days compared to the swallowing groups and others. The multivariate analysis has highlighted the underlying disease as the only associated parameter with short and long term mortality.

PEG tube placement is associated with high short and long term mortality depending on the underlying disease. We outlined the potential role of PEG tube insertion as a supportive transient approach for nutritional support.

A gastrostomy tube is often required for inpatients requiring long-term nutritional access. We compared the safety and outcomes of 3 techniques for performing a gastrostomy: percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), fluoroscopy-guided gastrostomy by an interventional radiologist (IR-gastrostomy), and open gastrostomy performed by a surgeon (surgical gastrostomy).

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, we identified hospitalized patients who underwent a gastrostomy from 2016 to 2017. They were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Procedure Coding System. The selected patients were divided into 3 cohorts: PEG (0DH64UZ), IR-gastrostomy (0DH63UZ), and open surgical gastrostomy (0DH60UZ). Adjusted odds ratios for adverse events associated with each technique were calculated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Of the 184,068 patients meeting the selection criteria, the route of gastrostomy tube placement was as follows: PEG, 16,384 (53.7 ± 29.0 years); IR-gastrostomy, 154,007 (67.2 ± 17.5 years); and surgical gastrostomy, 13,677 (57.9 ± 24.3 years). Compared with PEG, the odds for colon perforation using IR-gastrostomy and surgical gastrostomy, respectively, were 1.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-2.86; P = .002) and 6.65 (95% CI, 4.38-10.12; P < .001), for infection of the gastrostomy 1.28 (95% CI, 1.07-1.53; P = .006) and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.29-2.01; P < .001), for hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion 1.84 (95% CI, 1.26-2.68; P = .002) and 1.09 (95% CI, .64-1.86; P = .746), for nonelective 30-day readmission 1.07 (95% CI, 1.03-1.12; P = .0023) and 1.13 (95% CI, 1.06-1.2; P = .0002), and for inpatient mortality 1.09 (95% CI, 1.02-1.17; P = .0114) and 1.55 (95% CI, 1.42-1.69; P < .0001).

Placement of a gastrostomy tube (PEG) endoscopically is associated with a significantly lower risk of inpatient adverse events, mortality, and readmission rates compared with IR-gastrostomy and open surgical gastrostomy.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the most common endoscopic procedure used to provide nutritional support.

To prospectively evaluate the mortality and complication incidences after PEG insertion or replacement.

All patients who underwent PEG insertion or replacement were included. Details on patient characteristics, ongoing therapies, comorbidities, and indication for PEG placement/replacement were collected, along with informed consent form signatures. Early and late (30-day) complications and mortality were assessed.

950 patients (47.1% male) were enrolled in 25 centers in Lombardy, a region of Northern Italy. Patient mean age was 73 years. 69.5% of patients had ASA status 3 or 4. First PEG placement was performed in 594 patients. Complication and mortality incidences were 4.8% and 5.2%, respectively. The most frequent complication was infection (50%), followed by bleeding (32.1%), tube dislodgment (14.3%), and buried bumper syndrome (3.6%). At multivariable analysis, age (OR 1.08 per 1-year increase, 95% CI, 1.0-1.16, p = 0.010) and BMI (OR 0.86 per 1-point increase, 95% CI, 0.77-0.96, p = 0.014) were factors associated with mortality. PEG replacement was carried out in 356 patients. Thirty-day mortality was 1.8%, while complications occurred in 1.7% of patients.

Our data confirm that PEG placement is a safe procedure. Mortality was not related to the procedure itself, confirming that careful patient selection is warranted.

Multiple approaches to radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) exist. The goal of this study was to compare 30-day outcomes and associated complications between large bore balloon-retained (BR), loop-retained (LR), and pull-type (PT) RIG devices.

Data on 1477 patients who underwent RIG between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2016 were collected retrospectively using a dedicated interventional radiology database and electronic medical record. Statistical analysis was performed to compare complication rates between BR, LR, and PT devices.

Ninety-eight percent (1477/1507) of the procedures were successfully performed. A total of 752 BR, 323 LR, and 402 PT gastrostomy tubes were placed. The overall complication rate for BR catheters was 5.7% (25 major [3.3%] and 18 minor [2.4%]). The overall complication rate for PT catheters was 3.7% (8 major [2.0%] and 7 minor [1.7%]). The overall complication rate for LR catheters was 1.6% (4 major [1.4%] and 1 minor [0.8%]). Compared to BR catheters, LR catheters had significantly fewer total complications (P = 0.01) but not minor complications (P = 0.052). There were no significant differences in the number of complications between LR and PT catheters or between BR and PT catheters.

Use of BR, LR, and PT devices for RIG is safe with a low incidence of complications. Compared to BR catheters, primary insertion of a LR gastrostomy was associated with significantly fewer overall complications within the first 30 days. Therefore, for initial tube placement, large bore LR catheters may be preferred over BR devices.

Gastrostomy has been established as the standard procedure for administering long-term enteral nutrition in individuals with swallowing disturbances. Percutaneous gastrostomy is a less-invasive approach than open surgical gastrostomy, and can be accomplished via endoscopy (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or PEG) or sonographic or fluoroscopic guidance (percutaneous radiological gastrostomy or PRG). Both techniques have different limitations, advantages, and contraindications. In order to determine the optimal technique for long-term nutritional supplementation many studies have been conducted to compare the outcomes of these two techniques; however, it remains unclear as to which method is superior to the other with respect to both efficacy and safety.

To compare the safety and efficacy of PEG and PRG in the treatment of individuals with swallowing disturbances.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, January 2016); MEDLINE (1946 to 22 January 2016); EMBASE (1980 to 22 January 2016); the reference lists of identified articles; databases of ongoing trials, including the Chinese Cochrane Centre Controlled Trials Register; and PubMed. We applied no language restrictions.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PEG with PRG in individuals with swallowing disturbances, regardless of the underlying disease.

Two authors independently evaluated the search results and assessed the quality of the studies. Data analyses could not be performed as no RCTs were identified for inclusion in this review.

We identified no RCTs comparing PEG and PRG for percutaneous gastrostomy in individuals with swallowing disturbances. The large body of evidence in this field comes from retrospective and non-randomised controlled studies and case series. Based on this evidence, both PEG and PRG can be safely performed in selected individuals, although both are associated with major and minor complications. A definitive RCT has yet to be conducted to identify the preferred percutaneous gastrostomy technique.

Both PEG and PRG are effective for long-term enteral nutritional support in selected individuals, though current evidence is insufficient to recommend one technique over the other. Choice of technique should be based on indications and contraindications, operator experience and the facilities available. Large-scale RCTs are required to compare the two techniques and to determine the optimal approach for percutaneous gastrostomy.