4.5 Article

Complications and early mortality in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement in lombardy: A multicenter prospective cohort study

Journal

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
Volume 51, Issue 10, Pages 1380-1387

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2019.03.024

Keywords

Complications; Mortality; PEG; Risk factors; Short-term outcome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the most common endoscopic procedure used to provide nutritional support. Aim: To prospectively evaluate the mortality and complication incidences after PEG insertion or replacement. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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. (C) 2019 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available