The invasive nature of the endoscopic placement of a gastrostomy tube is associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to other routine endoscopic procedures. Alternative options to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) include fluoroscopy-guided gastrostomy (IR-gastrostomy) and surgical gastrostomy. This study utilized the Nationwide Readmissions Database, analyzing data from 2016 and 2017, to compare the safety and outcomes of all 3 techniques in hospitalized patients. Adjusted odds ratios for adverse events were calculated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A total of 184,068 patients underwent gastrostomy placement (PEG, 16,384; IR-gastrostomy, 154,007; and surgical gastrostomy, 13,677). Compared with PEG placement, the risk of colon perforation was 1.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-2.86) with IR-gastrostomy and 6.65 (95% CI, 4.38-10.12) with surgical gastrostomy. Moreover, the odds of infection were 1.28 (95% CI, 1.07-1.53) for IR-gastrostomy and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.29-2.01) for surgical gastrostomy, and the odds of hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion were 1.84 (95% CI, 1.26-2.68) for IR-gastrostomy versus PEG and 1.09 (95% CI, 0.64-1.86; P<\/em>=.746) for surgical gastrostomy versus PEG. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The adjusted odds for 30-day readmission compared to PEG placement were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.06-1.2) for surgical gastrostomy and 1.07 (95% CI, 1.03-1.12) for IR-gastrostomy. Finally, using a multivariate analysis, the odds of inpatient mortality were 1.55 (95% CI, 1.42-1.69) for surgical gastrostomy versus PEG and 1.09 (95% CI, 1.02-1.17) for IR-gastrostomy versus PEG.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The invasive nature of the endoscopic placement of a gastrostomy tube is associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to other routine endoscopic procedures. Alternative options to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) include fluoroscopy-guided gastrostomy (IR-gastrostomy) and surgical gastrostomy. This study utilized the Nationwide Readmissions Database, analyzing data from 2016 and 2017, to compare the safety … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","categories":[1768,1789],"tags":[2159,306,2104,2103],"class_list":["post-9284","ec-news","type-ec-news","status-publish","hentry","category-asge-journal-scan","category-stomach-and-small-bowel","tag-ir-gastrostomy-2","tag-peg","tag-small-bowel","tag-stomach-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.endoscopy-campus.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ec-news\/9284","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.endoscopy-campus.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ec-news"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.endoscopy-campus.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/ec-news"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.endoscopy-campus.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.endoscopy-campus.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.endoscopy-campus.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}