Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40736945›Full record

ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2025

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy with Jejunal Extension Versus Direct Percutaneous Endoscopic Jejunostomy for Post-pyloric Feeding: A Dual-Center Retrospective Study.

Matthew R Krafft, Soban Maan, Adam Scott, Katherine Shepherd, Rahul Karna, Emily Clemetson, Shailendra Singh, Shyam Thakkar, Stuart K Amateau

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

9 authors.

Matthew R KrafftDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA. mrkrafft@hsc.wvu.edu.
Soban MaanDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Adam ScottDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, & Nutrition, University of Minnesota Medical Center, M Health Fairview, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Katherine ShepherdDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Rahul KarnaDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, & Nutrition, University of Minnesota Medical Center, M Health Fairview, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Emily ClemetsonDivision of Hospital Medicine, Northern Light Mercy Hospital, Portland, MD, USA.
Shailendra SinghDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Shyam ThakkarDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Stuart K AmateauDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, & Nutrition, University of Minnesota Medical Center, M Health Fairview, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic procedures for post-pyloric feeding include percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension (PEG-J) and direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (PEJ). We conducted the largest and only dual-center retrospective study comparing outcomes of patients receiving PEG-J vs. PEJ.

methodsA dual-center retrospective study was conducted of patients who underwent either PEG-J or PEJ for post-pyloric feeding ±  gastric decompression. Primary outcomes were technical success (TS) and reintervention for adverse event (rAE: ≥ 1 feeding tube exchange, conversion, and/or removal performed as needed for management of tube-related or stoma-related AE). Secondary outcomes were index procedure time, AE category (tube-related/stoma-related), and reintervention(s) prompted by each AE category.

resultsTS was similar for both procedures (PEG-J: 71/75 [95%] vs. PEJ: 68/75 [91%], p = 0.533). The PEG-J cohort had more reinterventions for AEs (rAE: 33/75 [44%] vs. 20/75 [27%], p = 0.04) occurring closer to the index procedure (median time to rAE, 163 days vs. 307 days, log rank p = 0.018). Tube-related AEs (38/75 [51%] vs. 25/75 [33%], p = 0.047) and resultant reinterventions were more common after PEG-J, especially tube clog (p = 0.017) and retrograde J-tube migration (p = 0.0003). Stoma-related AEs (PEG-J: 3/75 [4%] vs. PEJ: 7/75 [9%], p = 0.327) and resultant reinterventions were similar in both cohorts.

conclusionsTechnical success was comparable between PEG-J and PEJ; however, PEJ recipients had fewer tube-related AEs and resultant reinterventions. These findings favor PEJ as first-line for patients requiring prolonged post-pyloric feeding, especially if concomitant gastric decompression is not required.

Indexed as

Endoscopy, GastrointestinalEnteral NutritionGastrostomyJejunostomyJejunumAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPylorusRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeDirect percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomyPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extensionPost-pyloric feedingTube malfunction

Identifiers

PMID40736945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.