Published online Sep 5, 2022. doi: 10.4292/wjgpt.v13.i5.77
Peer-review started: October 23, 2021
First decision: December 16, 2021
Revised: January 22, 2022
Accepted: August 14, 2022
Article in press: August 14, 2022
Published online: September 5, 2022
Processing time: 311 Days and 8.5 Hours
Stroke patients commonly require enteral nutrition for dysphagia. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes and nasogastric tubes are options for enteral feeding, but the optimal timing determining when PEG tubes should be placed is uncertain. The 2011 ASGE guidelines recommend waiting 2 wk for assessment of resolution of dysphagia prior to placing a PEG tube, but the recommen
There is a demand for earlier placement of PEG tubes to facilitate earlier patient discharge to intensive rehab for neurologic recovery. An observational study using the Nationwide Patient Survey data found no difference in inpatient mortality or complication rates following early (within 7 d) PEG placement compared to delayed PEG placement after 7 d. This study was based on hospital data and could not provide longer term post-hospitalization outcomes or mortality. Further studies looking at the safety of early PEG placement are warranted.
This study aims to evaluate the safety of early (within 7 d) vs delayed (after 7 d) placement of PEG tubes in patients for dysphagia after acute stroke. Primary objectives were evaluation of 30- and 90-d mortality and rates of peri- and post-procedural complication. Secondary objectives included identification of predictors of morbidity and mortality in multivariate analysis.
This bi-center, retrospective chart review identified 482 patients undergoing PEG placement based on endoscopy reports. After excluding patients with age < 18, PEG placed by surgery or interventional radiology, and indications other than dysphagia from acute stroke, 154 patients were identified for review, including 62 PEGs placed within 7 d of stroke and 92 placed after 7 d. Retrospective data was collected, and outcomes evaluated included rate of peri-procedural complications, rate of post-procedural complications, and 90-d all-cause mortality. Demographics and predictors of morbidity and mortality were also collected and evaluated in multivariate logistic regression.
Demographics and comorbidities were similar between groups, except for age (early 74.7 vs delayed 66.2 years, P = 0.0005). There was no statistically significant difference in peri- or post-procedural complication rate or mortality between groups. None of the proposed risk factors studies significantly impacted 30- or 90-d mortality, although protein-calorie malnutrition and presence of infection or SIRS criteria were non-significantly associated with an increase in complication rate. Finally, hospital length of stay was significantly lower in patients undergoing PEG tube placement (12.9 vs 22.3 d, P < 0.001).
Early PEG placement was not associated with an increase in mortality or complications compared to delayed PEG placement in this retrospective chart review. This suggests early PEG placement is safe.
Further prospective study to evaluate the safety of early PEG placement and reconsideration of the 2-wk delay in PEG placement is warranted.