Comparison Between Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy and Nasogastric Feeding in 160 Patients with Swallowing Disturbances: A Two-Year Follow-Up Study

Abstract

We retrospectively compared the complications, blood biochemical indexes and outcomes in patients with swallowing disturbances receiving nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding and percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG). Methods: Among 160 patients, 72 cases received PEG and 88 cases received NGT. All patients were followed up for two years. We collected their clinical data from the medical records. Indicators, such as body mass index (BMI), white blood cell (WBC), hemoglobin (HGB), complications, including recurrent aspiration pneumonia, gastrointestinal bleeding, reflux esophagitis, and outcomes (survival or death) were compared between the two groups semi-annually. Results: SAt both six months and one year after receiving treatment, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in indicators, complications and outcomes, with all P >0.05. It can be seen that, when the patients were followed up for one and a half years18 months, ALB was lower in the NGT group (33.81±0.46) compared with the PEG group (36.14±0.50) (P <0.05). After two years of follow-up, differences between the NGT and PEG group could be seen in a variety of indicators, including BMI (20.08±0.27 vs 21.03±0.25), WBC (9.12±0.56 vs 7.08±0.29), ALB (33.11±0.43 vs 35.75±0.49), creatinine (55.07±1.83 vs 63.21±2.94), and the complications, such as aspiration pneumonia, gastrointestinal bleeding, reflux esophagitis, and electrolyte disorder, in the PEG group were significantly reduced compared to the NGT groupthan that in its counterpart, P <0.05. In the two-year follow-up period, there were 13 and 22 patients died in the PEG group and NGT group, respectively. Conclusion: Both techniques are safe and effective in the short term. However, on a longer-term basis, PEG is shown to be superior to NGT feeding in improving nutrition and preventing common complications for patients with swallowing disturbances.

Rehabilitation interventions for malnutrition in head and neck cancer patients: Current state and future directions

“…[31,32] Feeding via an NGT may be preferable in the short term, but a PEG may be more appropriate for patients requiring long-term enteral nutrition. [33,34] If enteral feeds are expected to last longer than 4 weeks, PEG is recommended. [18] Parenteral nutrition For patients with HNC who cannot receive tube feeding or who have severe intestinal insufficiency such as nausea, vomiting, bloating, and diarrhea, PN can be used when neither ONS nor tube feeding can meet their nutritional needs.…”

“…[31,32] Feeding via an NGT may be preferable in the short term, but a PEG may be more appropriate for patients requiring long-term enteral nutrition. [33,34] If enteral feeds are expected to last longer than 4 weeks, PEG is recommended. [18]…”

Possible Role of Carbocysteine Syrup in the Deflation of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Balloons

“…Since its introduction in the clinical arena in the 1980s, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has become the modality of choice for providing intestinal access to patients with a functional gastrointestinal tract who require long-term enteral nutrition, usually beyond four weeks [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. In addition, there is evidence that PEG is superior to nasogastric tube feeding in improving nutrition and preventing common complications for patients with swallowing disturbances [ 4 ]. Although generally considered safe, PEG tube placement can be associated with many potential complications, classified as major or minor [ 5 ].…”