Background: The aims and objectives of this article were to compare the advantages, disadvantages associated with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and nasogastric (NG) tube and also to compare complications, to measure the outcomes in terms of hospital stay, mortality and improvement in nutritional status.Methods: In this prospective and interventional study 25 patients were selected in each group on an alternate basis. Study was conducted on cases of traumatic brain injury and cerebrovascular accident patients admitted in Department of General Surgery, IGGMC for a period of November 2013- November 2015 with a need to provide prolonged enteral nutritional support. Each patient was assessed by a dietician and received a standard enteral feeding according to their body weight. The main outcome was measures at 4 weeks were complications (tube dislodgement, aspiration pneumonia, tube blockade and peristomal infections) and nutritional status.Results: The anthropometric parameters (mid arm circumference, biceps skin fold thickness and triceps skin fold thickness) and serum albumin showed a rise in PEG group at 4 weeks when compared to baseline (0 week) whereas they showed a decline in NG group at follow up (4 weeks). The NG group has got higher mortality 4 (17%) when compared to PEG group 2 (7%) due to aspiration pneumonia. Hence, PEG is better tolerated with lesser complications better nutritional support as assessed by the anthropometric parameters at 4 weeks.Conclusions: We conclude that whenever feasible percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding is a choice over nasogastric (NG) feeding in patients requiring long term enteral support.
How should this patient with repeated aspiration pneumonia be managed and treated?—a proposal of the Percutaneous ENdoscopIc Gastrostomy and Tracheostomy (PENlIGhT) procedure
