Safety of Percutaneous Endoscopic Jejunostomy Placement Compared With Surgical and Radiologic Jejunostomy Placement: A Nationwide Inpatient Assessment.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We compared the safety and outcomes of percutaneous jejunostomy tubes placed endoscopically (PEJ), fluoroscopically by interventional radiology (IR-jejunostomy), and open jejunostomy placed surgically (surgical jejunostomy).

METHODS

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, we identified hospitalized patients who underwent a jejunostomy from 2016 to 2019. Selected patients were divided into 3 cohorts: PEJ, IR-jejunostomy, and surgical jejunostomy. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) for adverse events were calculated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 6022 (65.2±9.8 y) surgical jejunostomy patients, 3715 (63.6±11.0 y) endoscopic jejunostomy patients, and 14,912 (64.8±11.6 y) IR-jejunostomy patients were identified. Compared with surgery, PEJ patients were 32% less likely to experience postprocedure complications (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.58-0.79, P <0.001) while IR-jejunostomy patients were 17% less likely to experience complications (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.73-0.94, P <0.001); test of proportion showed that endoscopy had significantly fewer total adverse events compared with IR ( P <0.001). For individual complications, compared with surgery, the odds of intestinal perforation using PEJ and IR, respectively, were 0.26 (95% CI: 0.14-0.49, P <0.001) and 0.31 (95% CI: 0.21-0.47, P <0.001), for postprocedure infection 0.32 (95% CI: 0.20-0.50; P <0.001) and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.45-0.83; P =0.001); and for hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion 0.71 (95% CI: 0.56-0.91; P =0.005) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.61-0.91; P =0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic placement of percutaneous jejunostomy tubes (PEJ) in inpatients is associated with significantly lower risks of adverse events and mortality compared with IR and surgical jejunostomy.