Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35708794›Full record

ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2023

Direct Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Versus Radiological Gastrostomy in Patients Unable to Undergo Transoral Endoscopic Pull Gastrostomy.

Divyanshoo R Kohli, Craig Smith, Omer Chaudhry, Madhav Desai, Dion DePaolis, Prateek Sharma

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04151030 (Endoscopic Direct-PEG Placement in Patients Unable to Undergo Pull-PEG Procedure), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04151030 nacompletednot on this map

Endoscopic Direct-PEG Placement in Patients Unable to Undergo Pull-PEG Procedure

TypeinterventionalSponsorKansas City Veteran Affairs Medical CenterRan2019 to 2021Enrolled45ConditionsHead and Neck Neoplasm, Gastrostomy, Esophageal Stenosis and ObstructionArmsPEG placement
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on gastrostomy feeding tubes: methodology and review of evidence.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Divyanshoo R KohliDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, 4801 E Linwood Blvd, Kansas City, MO, 64128, USA. kohli015@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7801-0044
Craig SmithDivision of Interventional Radiology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, MO, USA.
Omer ChaudhryDivision of Interventional Radiology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, MO, USA.
Madhav DesaiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, 4801 E Linwood Blvd, Kansas City, MO, 64128, USA.
Dion DePaolisDivision of Interventional Radiology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, MO, USA.
Prateek SharmaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, 4801 E Linwood Blvd, Kansas City, MO, 64128, USA.
Kansas City VA Medical Center · USProvidence Sacred Heart Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsA subset of patients needing long-term enteral access are unable to undergo a conventional transoral "pull" percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). We assessed the safety and efficacy of an introducer-style endoscopic direct PEG (DPEG) and an interventional radiologist guided gastrostomy (IRG) among patients unable to undergo a pull PEG.

methodsIn this single center, non-randomized, pilot study, patients unable to undergo a transoral Pull PEG were prospectively recruited for a DPEG during the index endoscopy. IRG procedures performed at our center served as the comparison group. The primary outcome was technical success and secondary outcomes included 30-day and 90-day all-cause mortality, procedure duration, dosage of medications, adverse events, and 30-day all-cause hospitalization. The Charlson comorbidity index was used to compare comorbidities.

resultsA total of 47 patients (68.3 ± 7.13 years) underwent DPEG and 45 patients (68.6 ± 8.23 years) underwent IRG. The respective Charlson comorbidity scores were 6.37 ± 2 and 6.16 ± 1.72 (P = 0.59). Malignancies of the upper aerodigestive tract were the most common indications for DPEG and IRG (42 vs. 37; P = 0.38). The outcomes for DPEG and IRG were as follows: technical success: 96 vs. 98%; P = 1; 30-day all-cause mortality: 0 vs 15%, P < 0.01; 90-day all-cause mortality: 0 vs. 31%, P < 0.001; 30-day hospitalization: 19 vs. 38%; P = 0.06; procedure duration: 23.8 ± 1.39 vs. 29.5 ± 2.03 min, P = 0.02; midazolam dose: 4.5 ± 1.6 vs. 1.23 ± 0.6 mg; P < 0.001, and opiate dose: 105.6 ± 38.2 vs. 70.7 ± 34.5 µg, P < 0.001, respectively. Perforation of the colon during IRG was the sole serious adverse event.

conclusionDPEG is a safe and effective alternative to IRG in patients unable to undergo a conventional transoral pull PEG and may be considered as a primary modality for enteral support. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT04151030.

Indexed as

GastrostomySurgical StomasEndoscopy, GastrointestinalHumansPilot ProjectsRadiographyRetrospective StudiesAdverse eventsMortalityPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Identifiers

PMID35708794
OpenAlexW4282962227

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.