ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Risk factors and natural history of bedside percutaneous endoscopic versus fluoroscopy-guided gastrostomy tubes in intensive care unit patients.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is a paucity of literature comparing patients receiving bedside placed percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) versus fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous gastrostomy tubes (G-tube) in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting. This study aims to investigate and compare the natural history and complications associated with PEG versus fluoroscopic G-tube placement in ICU patients.
methodsAll adult patients admitted in the ICU requiring feeding tube placement at our center from 1/1/2017 to 1/1/2022 with at least 12-month follow up were identified through retrospective chart review. Adjusting for patient comorbidities, hospital factors, and indications for enteral access, a 1-to-2 propensity score matched Cox proportional-hazards model was fitted to evaluate the treatment effect of bedside PEG tube placement versus G-tube placement on patient 1-year complication, readmission, and death rates. Major complications were defined as those requiring operative or procedural intervention.
resultsThis study included 740 patients, with 178 bedside PEG and 562 fluoroscopic G-tube placements. The overall rate of complication was 22.3% (13% PEG, 25.2% G-tube, P = 0.003). The major complication rate was 11.2% (8.5% PEG, 12.1% G-tube, P = 0.09). Most common complications were tube dysfunction (16.7% PEG; 39.4% G-tube; P = 0.04) and dislodgement (58.3% PEG; 40.8% G-tube). After propensity score matching, G-tube recipients had significantly increased risk for all-cause (HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.56-4.87, P < 0.001) and major complications (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.05-4.23, P = 0.035). There were no significant differences in 1-year rates of readmission (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58-1.38, P = 0.62) or death (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.70-1.44, P = 0.7).
conclusionsThe overall rate of complications for ICU patients requiring feeding tube in our cohort was 22.3%. ICU patients receiving fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement had significantly elevated risk of 1-year all-cause and major complications compared to those undergoing bedside PEG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.