Complication rates of direct puncture and pull-through techniques for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: Results from a large multicenter cohort

Leonie Schuhmacher; Christian Bojarski; Victoria Reich; Andreas Adler; Winfried Veltzke-Schlieker; Christian Jürgensen; Bertran Wiedenmann; Britta Siegmund; Federika Branchi; Julianne Buchkremer; Steffen Hornoff; Dirk Hartmann; Christoph Treese

doi:10.1055/a-1924-3525

Endoscopy International Open, Table of Contents

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2022; 10(11): E1454-E1461
DOI: 10.1055/a-1924-3525

Original article

Complication rates of direct puncture and pull-through techniques for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: Results from a large multicenter cohort

Leonie Schuhmacher

¹Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology (including Nutrition Medicine), Berlin, Germany

,

Christian Bojarski

¹Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology (including Nutrition Medicine), Berlin, Germany

,

Victoria Reich

¹Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology (including Nutrition Medicine), Berlin, Germany

,

Andreas Adler

²Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Berlin, Germany

,

Winfried Veltzke-Schlieker

²Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Berlin, Germany

,

Christian Jürgensen

²Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Berlin, Germany

,

Bertran Wiedenmann

²Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Berlin, Germany

,

Britta Siegmund

¹Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology (including Nutrition Medicine), Berlin, Germany

,

Federika Branchi

¹Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology (including Nutrition Medicine), Berlin, Germany

,

Julianne Buchkremer

¹Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology (including Nutrition Medicine), Berlin, Germany

,

Steffen Hornoff

³Department of Gastroenterology, Sana-Klinikum Lichtenberg, Berlin, Germany

,

Dirk Hartmann

³Department of Gastroenterology, Sana-Klinikum Lichtenberg, Berlin, Germany

,

Christoph Treese

¹Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology (including Nutrition Medicine), Berlin, Germany

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Background and study aims Two different techniques for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) have been developed: classical pull-through and direct puncture techniques. This study compared the complication rate for both techniques in a large retrospective patient cohort.

Patients and methods Clinical data from patients who received a PEG in four high-volume centers for endoscopy were included retrospectively between January 2016 and December 2018. Patient characteristics and complication rates were correlated in univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results Data from 1014 patients undergoing a PEG insertion by the pull-through technique were compared to 183 patients for whom the direct puncture technique was used. The direct puncture technique was associated with a 50 % reduction in minor and 85.7 % reduction in major complications when compared to the pull-through technique. Multivariate analysis of these data revealed an odds ratio of 0.067 (0.02–0.226; P < 0.001) for major complications in the direct puncture group.

Conclusions Compared to the pull-through technique, the direct puncture technique resulted in a significant reduction in complications. Despite the retrospective design of this study, these results suggest that the direct puncture technique may be preferable to improve patient safety.

Full Text

References

References
1 Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 1980; 15: 872-875
2 Grund K, Zipfel A. Perkutane endoskopische Gastrostomie – Komplikationen vermeiden und therapieren. Gastroenterol Update 2017; 13: 83-99
3 Iyer KR, Crawley TC. Complications of enteral access. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2007; 17: 717-729
4 Teich N, Selig L, Liese S. et al. Usage characteristics and adverse event rates of the direct puncture and pull techniques for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients ith malignant tumors of the upper aerodigestive tract. Endosc Int Open 2018; 06: E29-E35
5 Toyama Y, Usuba T, Son K. et al. Successful new method of extracorporeal percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (E-PEG). Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 2007; 21: 2034-2038
6 Maetani I, Yasuda M, Seike M. et al. Efficacy of an overtube for reducing the risk of peristomal infection after PEG placement: a prospective, randomized comparison study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 522-527
7 Hiki N, Maetani I, Suzuki Y. et al. Reduced risk of peristomal infection of direct percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in cancer patients: comparison with the pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy procedure. J Am Coll Surg 2008; 207: 737-744
8 Tucker AT, Gourin CG, Ghegan MD. et al. “Push” versus “pull” percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 2003; 113: 1898-1902
9 Shigoka H, Maetani I, Tominaga K. et al. Comparison of modified introducer method with pull method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: Prospective randomized study. Dig Endosc 2012; 24: 426-431
10 Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Tanaka N. et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing the direct method using a 24 Fr bumper-button-type device with the pull method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 722-726
11 Van Dyck E, Macken EJ, Roth B. et al. Safety of pull-type and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in oncology patients: A retrospective analysis. BMC Gastroenterol 2011; 11: 23
12 Gkolfakis P, Arvanitakis M, Despott EJ. et al. Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients – Part 2: Peri- and post-procedural management. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. . Endoscopy 2021; 53: 178-195
13 Riphaus A, Wehrmann T, Hausmann J. et al. Update S3-Leitlinie Sedierung in der gastrointestinalen Endoskopie 2014 (AWMF-Register-Nr. 021/014). 2015;