title: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy: a critical reappraisal of patient selection, tube function and the feasibility of nutritional support during extended follow-up.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a generally accepted procedure, but the appropriateness of patient selection and the justification of jejunal feeding have not been systematically investigated. Also, a critical appraisal of the applicability and tolerance of nutritional support in the immediate postinsertion period and during prolonged outpatient care is lacking.
  
  
  METHODS
  Prospectively collected data in adult and pediatric patients during a period of 7 years were analyzed. Follow-up data were available at days 1, 7 and 28 and thereafter every 6 to 12 weeks until gastrostomy removal, death or the conclusion of the study.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A PEG was successfully positioned in 268 of the 286 referred patients (94%). A jejunal tube through the PEG (JETPEG) was placed beyond the duodenojejunal ligament in 38 patients. Procedure-related mortality was 1%, 30-day outpatient mortality 6.7%. Total follow-up was 295 patient-years with an overall mortality of 53% (PEG 53%; JETPEG 50%). Both major (8.4%) and minor (24.0%) procedure-related complications in the first 28 days consisted merely of (infectious) wound problems. In prolonged follow-up, the complications were more tube-related. The durability of the tube in surviving patients with a PEG or JETPEG in situ was a median of 495 days (range 162 to 1732 days). Tube dysfunction because of clogging, porosity and fracture occurred after a median of 347 days (range 9 to 1123 days). Nausea, vomiting, bloating and dumping interfered with feeding during the first week and during extended follow-up. Intrajejunal feeding was associated with dumping and diarrhea. In retrospect, the anticipated need of 4 weeks of enteral nutrition was not met in 9.0%. The extension of a PEG into a JETPEG was thought inappropriate in 23.7%. In the remainder, a 91% reduction in aspiration justified its use. The tube life span was equal to or greater than that of a PEG, despite tube dysfunction in 26.8%.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Proper selection of patients for a PEG, i.e., those with an anticipated need of greater than 4 weeks of enteral nutrition, is a challenge. Notwithstanding an increased rate of tube dysfunction, well-selected patients may benefit from a JETPEG. Follow-up is mandatory because many patients might have become malnourished or underfed while on tube feeding, mainly because of GI intolerance.
authors.affiliation: Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: L M
authors.initials: LM
authors.lastname: Mathus-Vliegen
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Koning
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D004750:Enteral Nutrition; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005773:Gastroscopy; D005774:Gastrostomy / Q000295:instrumentation; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D007582:Jejunostomy / Q000295:instrumentation; D008134:Long-Term Care; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D018579:Patient Selection; D011446:Prospective Studies; D016019:Survival Analysis