Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
Biostatistics, St Luke's Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 May;93(5):1077-1085.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.09.012. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
A gastrostomy tube is often required for inpatients requiring long-term nutritional access. We compared the safety and outcomes of 3 techniques for performing a gastrostomy: percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), fluoroscopy-guided gastrostomy by an interventional radiologist (IR-gastrostomy), and open gastrostomy performed by a surgeon (surgical gastrostomy).
Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, we identified hospitalized patients who underwent a gastrostomy from 2016 to 2017. They were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Procedure Coding System. The selected patients were divided into 3 cohorts: PEG (0DH64UZ), IR-gastrostomy (0DH63UZ), and open surgical gastrostomy (0DH60UZ). Adjusted odds ratios for adverse events associated with each technique were calculated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.
Of the 184,068 patients meeting the selection criteria, the route of gastrostomy tube placement was as follows: PEG, 16,384 (53.7 ± 29.0 years); IR-gastrostomy, 154,007 (67.2 ± 17.5 years); and surgical gastrostomy, 13,677 (57.9 ± 24.3 years). Compared with PEG, the odds for colon perforation using IR-gastrostomy and surgical gastrostomy, respectively, were 1.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-2.86; P = .002) and 6.65 (95% CI, 4.38-10.12; P < .001), for infection of the gastrostomy 1.28 (95% CI, 1.07-1.53; P = .006) and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.29-2.01; P < .001), for hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion 1.84 (95% CI, 1.26-2.68; P = .002) and 1.09 (95% CI, .64-1.86; P = .746), for nonelective 30-day readmission 1.07 (95% CI, 1.03-1.12; P = .0023) and 1.13 (95% CI, 1.06-1.2; P = .0002), and for inpatient mortality 1.09 (95% CI, 1.02-1.17; P = .0114) and 1.55 (95% CI, 1.42-1.69; P < .0001).
Placement of a gastrostomy tube (PEG) endoscopically is associated with a significantly lower risk of inpatient adverse events, mortality, and readmission rates compared with IR-gastrostomy and open surgical gastrostomy.
长期需要营养摄入的住院患者通常需要胃造口管。我们比较了三种进行胃造口术的安全性和结果:经皮内镜胃造口术(PEG)、介入放射科医生行 X 线透视引导胃造口术(IR-胃造口术)和外科医生行开放性胃造口术(手术胃造口术)。
使用全国再入院数据库,我们从 2016 年至 2017 年确定了接受胃造口术的住院患者。使用国际疾病分类第 10 次修订版,手术操作分类系统对其进行识别。所选患者分为 3 组:PEG(0DH64UZ)、IR-胃造口术(0DH63UZ)和开放性外科胃造口术(0DH60UZ)。使用多变量逻辑回归分析计算与每种技术相关的不良事件的调整比值比。
在符合选择标准的 184068 名患者中,胃造口管放置途径如下:PEG,16384 例(53.7±29.0 岁);IR-胃造口术,154007 例(67.2±17.5 岁);和手术胃造口术,13677 例(57.9±24.3 岁)。与 PEG 相比,IR-胃造口术和手术胃造口术分别发生结肠穿孔的几率为 1.90(95%置信区间[CI],1.26-2.86;P=0.002)和 6.65(95%CI,4.38-10.12;P<0.001),感染的几率为 1.28(95%CI,1.07-1.53;P=0.006)和 1.61(95%CI,1.29-2.01;P<0.001),需要输血的出血率为 1.84(95%CI,1.26-2.68;P=0.002)和 1.09(95%CI,0.64-1.86;P=0.746),非选择性 30 天再入院率为 1.07(95%CI,1.03-1.12;P=0.0023)和 1.13(95%CI,1.06-1.2;P=0.0002),以及住院死亡率为 1.09(95%CI,1.02-1.17;P=0.0114)和 1.55(95%CI,1.42-1.69;P<0.0001)。
与 IR-胃造口术和开放性外科胃造口术相比,经皮内镜胃造口术(PEG)内镜下放置胃造口管与较低的住院不良事件、死亡率和再入院率显著相关。