Document Detail


Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  21069702     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
BACKGROUND: A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its prolonged use can lead to complications such as lesions to the nasal wing, chronic sinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia. Another method of infusion, percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG), is generally used when there is a need for enteral nutrition for a longer time period. There is a high demand for PEG in patients with swallowing disorders, although there is no consistent evidence about its effectiveness and safety as compared to NGT.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PEG as compared to NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception to August 2009, as well as contacting main authors in the subject area. There was no language restriction in the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials comparing PEG versus NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances or dysphagia and indications for nutritional support, with any underlying diseases. The primary outcome was intervention failures (feeding interruption, blocking or leakage of the tube, no adherence to treatment).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors performed selection, data extraction and evaluation of methodological quality of studies. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), respectively with the random-effects statistical model and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assumed statistical heterogeneity when I(2) > 50%.
MAIN RESULTS: We included nine randomised controlled studies. Intervention failure occurred in 19/156 patients in the PEG group and 63/158 patients in the NGT group (RR 0.24 (95%CI 0.08 to 0.76, P = 0.01)) in favour of PEG. There was no statistically significant difference between comparison groups in complications (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.11, P = 0.93).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PEG was associated to a lower probability of intervention failure, suggesting the endoscopic procedure is more effective and safe as compared to NGT. There is no significant difference of mortality rates between comparison groups, and pneumonia irrespective of underlying disease (medical diagnosis). Future studies should include previously planned and executed follow-up periods, the gastrostomy technique, and the experience of the professionals to allow more detailed subgroup analysis.
Authors:
Claudio Ar Gomes; Suzana Angelica Silva Lustosa; Delcio Matos; Régis B Andriolo; Daniel R Waisberg; Jaques Waisberg
Publication Detail:
Type:  Comparative Study; Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Review     Date:  2010-11-10
Journal Detail:
Title:  The Cochrane database of systematic reviews     Volume:  -     ISSN:  1469-493X     ISO Abbreviation:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev     Publication Date:  2010  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-11-11     Completed Date:  2010-12-06     Revised Date:  2013-06-28    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  100909747     Medline TA:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  CD008096     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Gastrointestinal Surgery, UNIFESP, Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Adult
Deglutition Disorders / complications*
Enteral Nutrition / methods
Gastrostomy / adverse effects,  methods*
Humans
Intubation, Gastrointestinal / adverse effects,  methods*
Malnutrition / etiology,  prevention & control
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Treatment Failure
Comments/Corrections
Update In:
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;3:CD008096   [PMID:  22419328 ]

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus HCG for oocyte triggering in antagonist assisted repro...
Next Document:  Percutaneous lines for delivering intravenous antibiotics in people with cystic fibrosis.