Gastric outlet obstruction following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

For patients who are unable to meet their nutritional needs orally, enteral feeding via a percutaneous approach has become the mainstay of therapy. However, traditional enteral feeding methods, such as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, may not be viable options for patients with severe gastroparesis or gastric outlet obstruction. Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) is an enteral access method that was first described more than 20 years ago and has gained popularity among gastroenterologists. This review discusses the indications for and contraindications to DPEJ, the procedure, the application of DPEJ in specific subsets of patients with gastrointestinal disorders, and presents a brief tabular summary of complications and success rates of DPEJ in case series published since 2000.BACKGROUND: Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) is a well-known approach to deliver postpyloric enteral nutritional support to individuals who cannot tolerate gastric feeding. However, it is technically difficult, and some case series have reported significant procedural failure rates. The present article describes current indications, successes and complications of DPEJ placementMETHODS: A MEDLINE database search was performed to identify relevant articles using the key words “direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy”, “percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy”, and “percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with a jejunal extension tube”. Additional articles were identified by a manual search of the references cited in the key articles obtained in the primary search.RESULTS: DPEJ is gradually becoming more common in the treatment of patients who cannot tolerate gastric feeding. Differences in patient selection and technique modifications may contribute to the various success rates reported. Failure is most often due to inadequate transillumination or gastroduodenal obstruction. Currently, there are limited data to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of DPEJ.CONCLUSION: The clinical use of DPEJ is increasing. With appropriate care and expertise, DPEJ may prove to be reliable and safe.

Download Full-text

Is percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy safer than percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy?

American Journal of Interventional Radiology ◽

10.25259/ajir_21_2021 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 5 ◽

pp. 16

Author(s):

Johnathan Righetti ◽

Shane Morris ◽

Mehran Fotoohi ◽

Danielle La Selva ◽

Troy Zehr ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy ◽

Tertiary Care ◽

Outlet Obstruction ◽

Major Hemorrhage ◽

Endoscopic Gastrostomy ◽

Minor Adverse Event ◽

Intra Abdominal Infection ◽

A Minor ◽

Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy

Objectives: The objectives of the study were to compare the indications, adverse events, removal rates, and mortality of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) techniques at our tertiary care institution from 2014 to 2019. Material and Methods: We undertook a 5-year retrospective review of patients who underwent either PEG or PRG at our institution from 2014 to 2019. Common adverse events include tube clogs, leaks, minor bleeds, and wound infections, while more rare major complications include peritonitis, intra-abdominal infection, and major hemorrhage. The procedures were all performed with either conscious sedation or general anesthesia. A total of 789 patients were reviewed, of whom 519 (65.8%) had a PRG and 270 (34.2%) had a PEG. PRGs were more likely to be placed for head-and-neck cancer (P < 0.0001) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (P < 0.0001), while PEGs were more likely to be placed for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) (P <.0001) and malnutrition (P < 0.0001). Results: The rate of major adverse events was similar between the two groups (P = 0.938). GI placed gastrostomy tubes were more likely to have a minor adverse event (P < 0.0001), however, this was secondary to a significant increase in tube clog in the PEG/J group as compared to PEG (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: The decision to place a PEG or PRG should be individualized to the patient’s specific condition and indication. Both procedures have favorable safety profiles, and it is likely that institutional expertise and procedural access will be the primary determinants of the procedural technique chosen for minimally invasive gastrostomy.

Download Full-text