3.8 Review

Clinical practice guideline for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Journal

CLINICAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

KOREAN SOC GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
DOI: 10.5946/ce.2023.062

Keywords

Endoscopy; Gastrostomy; Guideline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With an aging population, the use of nasogastric tubes for enteral nutrition in patients with swallowing difficulties is increasing. However, long-term use of nasogastric tubes leads to complications and reduced quality of life. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is an alternative method that involves the percutaneous placement of a tube into the stomach for long-term enteral nutrition. This paper presents the first Korean clinical guideline for PEG, providing evidence-based recommendations for indications, timing, methods, and management of PEG.
With an aging population, the number of patients with difficulty in swallowing due to medical conditions is gradually increasing. In such cases, enteral nutrition is administered through a temporary nasogastric tube. However, the long-term use of a nasogastric tube leads to various complications and a decreased quality of life. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the percutaneous placement of a tube into the stomach that is aided endoscopically and may be an alternative to a nasogastric tube when enteral nutritional is required for four weeks or more. This paper is the first Korean clinical guideline for PEG developed jointly by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research and led by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. These guidelines aimed to provide physicians, including endoscopists, with the indications, use of prophylactic antibiotics, timing of enteric nutrition, tube placement methods, complications, replacement, and tubes removal for PEG based on the currently available clinical evidence.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available