Efficiency and Safety of Balloon-Assisted Gastrostomy.
Journal
Cardiovascular and interventional radiology
ISSN: 1432-086X
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003538
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
19
12
2020
accepted:
28
04
2021
pubmed:
8
7
2021
medline:
25
2
2023
entrez:
7
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To examine the safety and efficiency of balloon-assisted gastrostomy for insertion of large bore feeding tubes compared to conventional techniques using dilators. Retrospective review of all fluoroscopically guided percutaneous gastrostomy tube insertions between July 2017 and September 2019 was performed. Collected data points included patient demographics, initial pathology, type of gastrostomy tube (G tube) inserted [(Avanos standard balloon retained (Mic-G), or low-profile balloon retained (Mic-Key)], type of insertion technique (balloon-assisted or -nested dilator technique), fluoroscopy time, amount of sedation required, technical success, and complications. The focus of the study was method of tract dilatation - either balloon-assisted gastrostomy (BAG group) versus nested or sequential dilators (dilator group). Two hundred patients were included in this study; 100 patients were evaluated in each group. There were no significant differences between the two groups. The overall rate of minor complications (grades 1 and 2, according to the CIRSE classification system) was higher in the dilator group (11%, compared to 7% in the BAG group) but did not reach statistical significance. Males were associated with lower risk of minor complications (OR 0.19, 95% CI (0.07, 0.53)), while age did not present a significant association. Patients in the BAG group received a significantly lower amount of fentanyl (p < 0.001) and midazolam (p < 0.001) than patients in the dilator group. Balloon-assisted gastrostomy is a safe and effective technique for large bore gastrostomy placement. Patients required less sedation, allowing for faster recovery and discharge time in outpatients at our institution.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34231010
doi: 10.1007/s00270-021-02865-7
pii: 10.1007/s00270-021-02865-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1423-1429Informations de copyright
© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE).
Références
Wiggins TF, Garrow DA, DeLegge MH. Evaluation of percutaneous endoscopic feeding tube placement in obese patients. Nutr Clin Pract. 2009;24(6):723–7.
doi: 10.1177/0884533609349250
Chan SC, Ko SF, Ng SH, Cheung YC, Chang JTC, Liao CT, Wang HM, Lui KW. Fluoroscopically guided percutaneous gastrostomy with modified gastropexy and a large bore balloon retained catheter in patients with head and neck tumors. Acta Radiol. 2004;45(2):130–5.
doi: 10.1080/02841850410003707
Bendel EC, McKusick MA, Fleming CJ, Friese JL, Woodrum DA, et al. Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy catheter placement without gastropexy: a co-axial balloon technique and evaluation of safety and efficacy. Abdom Radiol. 2016;41(11):2227–32.
doi: 10.1007/s00261-016-0808-6
Thornton FJ, Fotherngham T, Haslam PJ, et al. Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy with and without T-fastener gastropexy: a randomized comparison study. Cardiovasc Internv Radiol. 2002;25(6):467–71.
doi: 10.1007/s00270-001-0089-4
Ryan JM, Hahn PF, Boland GW, McDowell RK, Saini S, Mueller PR. Percutaneous gastrostomy with T-fastener gastropexy: results of 316 consecutive procedures. Radiology. 1997;203(2):496–500.
doi: 10.1148/radiology.203.2.9114111
Preshaw RM. A percutaneous method for inserting a feeding gastrostomy tube. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1981;152(5):658–60.
pubmed: 6784260
Ferral H, Garza-Berlanga AE, Patel NH. Complications of nonvascular interventions and their management: case-based review. AJR. 2009;192(suppl 6):S63-77.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.7053
Filippiadis DK, Binkert C, Pellerin O, Hoffmann RT, Krajina A, Pereira PL. CIRSE Quality assurance document and standards for classification of complications: the CIRSE classification system. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2017;40(8):1141–6.
doi: 10.1007/s00270-017-1703-4
Kuo Y-C, Shlansky-Goldberg RD, Mondschein JI, William Stavropoulos S, Patel AA, et al. Large or small bore, push or pull: a comparison of three classes of percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19:557–64.
doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2007.09.027
Funaki B, Zaleski GX, Lorenz J, et al. Radiologic gastrostomy placement: mushroom versus pigtail catheters. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:375–9.
doi: 10.2214/ajr.175.2.1750375
McAllister P, MacIver C, Wales C, McMahon J, Devine JC, McHattie G, Makubat B. Gastrostomy insertion in head and neck cancer patients: a 3 year review of insertion method and complication rates. Brit J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;51(8):714–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.07.005
Anath S, Amin M. Implantation of oral squamous cell carcinoma at the site of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a case report. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;40:25–30.
O’Keeffe F, Carrasco CH, Charnsangavej C, Richli WR, et al. Percutaneous drainage and feeding gastrostomies in 100 patients. Radiology. 1989;172(2):341–3.
doi: 10.1148/radiology.172.2.2501821
Halkier BK, Ho CS, Yee AC. Percutaneous feeding gastrostomy with the Seldinger technique: review of 252 patients. Radiology. 1989;171(2):359–62.
doi: 10.1148/radiology.171.2.2495560
O’Donovan NA, Heelan JA. Percutaneous gastrostomy without gastropexy. Can Assoc Radiol J. 1995;46:194–5.
pubmed: 7538879