Sadasivan Anjana, Faizal Bini, Kumar Madhumita
Department of ENT, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, Kerala, India.
J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2012 Sep;26(3):226-32. doi: 10.3109/15360288.2012.702199.
To compare the efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and nasogastric (NGT) tube administration of enteral nutrition in head and neck cancer patients undergoing curative treatment, the authors conducted a prospective study to compare nutritional outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction. PEG patients sustained significantly less reduction in nutritional parameters, measured at 6 weeks post insertion, as compared with NGT patients. There was also a statistically significant difference between the two groups in patient's quality of life scores and complications. Comparison could not be done at 6 months because all patients were converted to PEG feeding due to the earlier findings. The authors conclude that PEG is more efficacious than NGT as a channel for nutrition in advanced head and neck cancer patients over a short duration.
为比较经皮内镜下胃造口术(PEG)和鼻胃管(NGT)给予肠内营养在接受根治性治疗的头颈癌患者中的疗效,作者进行了一项前瞻性研究,以比较营养结局、并发症和患者满意度。与NGT患者相比,PEG患者在置入后6周测量的营养参数下降明显更少。两组患者的生活质量评分和并发症之间也存在统计学上的显著差异。由于早期的研究结果,所有患者在6个月时都改为PEG喂养,因此无法进行比较。作者得出结论,在短期内,PEG作为晚期头颈癌患者的营养通道比NGT更有效。