To Pull or to Scope: A Prospective Safety and Cost-effectiveness of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Replacement Methods
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are routinely used as an effective method for providing enteral nutrition. The need for their exchange is common.Goals:
We aimed to examine the comparative safety and cost-effectiveness of PEG percutaneous counter-traction “pulling” approach or by endoscopically guided retrieval.Study:
A prospective 215 consecutive patients undergoing PEG tube insertion were included. Fifty patients in total were excluded. The patients were examined for demographics, indications for PEG replacement, as well as procedure-related complications and procedural costs.Results:
Group A included 70 patients (42%) with PEG tubes replaced endoscopically, whereas group B included 95 patients (58%) with PEG tubes replaced percutaneously. Baselines characteristics were similar between the 2 groups (P=NS). Group A and group B had similar immediate complication rates including 4 patients in group B (4.2%), and 2 patients in group A (2.8%) (P=0.24). Complications included a conservatively managed esophageal perforation, and self-limited mild bleeding groups A and group B, respectively. The mean procedure cost was significantly higher in the endoscopic PEG replacement group compared with the percutaneous PEG replacement group ($650 vs. $350, respectively).Conclusion:
Percutaneous PEG replacement appears as safe as endoscopic PEG replacement, however, percutaneous tube exchange is less costly.