Dergiler / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2015 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 6

Fluoroscopy-guided jejunal extension tube placement through existing gastrostomy tubes: analysis of 391 procedures

Sayfa
488–493
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Tubes indwelling for longer than 90 days have higher rates of malfunction and aspiration.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:PURPOSE We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of fluoroscopically placed jejunal extension tubes (J-arm) in patients with existing gastrostomy tubes.METHODSWe conducted a retrospective review of 391 J-arm placements performed in 174 patients.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Indica-tions for jejunal nutrition were aspiration risk (35%), pancreatitis (17%), gastroparesis (13%), gastric outlet obstruction (12%), and other (23%).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Tubes indwelling for longer than 90 days have higher rates of malfunction and aspiration.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

PURPOSE We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of fluoroscopically placed jejunal extension tubes (J-arm) in patients with existing gastrostomy tubes.METHODSWe conducted a retrospective review of 391 J-arm placements performed in 174 patients. Indica-tions for jejunal nutrition were aspiration risk (35%), pancreatitis (17%), gastroparesis (13%), gastric outlet obstruction (12%), and other (23%). Technical success, complications, malfunctions, and pa-tency were assessed. Percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG) tube location, J-arm course, and fluoroscopy time were correlated with success/failure. Failure was defined as inability to exit the stomach. Pro-cedure-related complications were defined as adverse events related to tube placement occurring within seven days. Tube malfunctions and aspiration events were recorded and assessed.RESULTSTechnical success was achieved in 91.9% (95% CI, 86.7%-95.2%) of new tubes versus 94.2% (95% CI, 86.7%-95.2%) of replacements (P = 0.373). Periprocedural complications occurred in three patients (0.8%). Malfunctions occurred in 197 patients (50%). Median tube patency was 103 days (95% CI, 71-134 days). No association was found between successful J-arm placement and gastric PEG tube position (P = 0.677), indication for jejunal nutrition (P = 0.349), J-arm trajectory in the stomach and incidence of malfunction (P = 0.365), risk of tube migration and PEG tube position (P = 0.173), or J-arm length (P = 0.987). A fluoroscopy time of 21.3 min was identified as a threshold for failure. Malfunc-tions occurred more often in tubes replaced after 90 days than in tubes replaced before 90 days (P < 0.001). A total of 42 aspiration events occurred (OR 6.4, P < 0.001, compared with nonmalfunctioning tubes).CONCLUSIONFluoroscopy-guided J-arm placement is safe for patients requiring jejunal nutrition. Tubes indwelling for longer than 90 days have higher rates of malfunction and aspiration.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

UFLACKER, A., QIAO, Y., EASLEY, G., PATRİE, J., LAMBERT, D., LANGE, E. E. D. (2015). Fluoroscopy-guided jejunal extension tube placement through existing gastrostomy tubes: analysis of 391 procedures. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 6, 488–493. https://ajindex.com/articles/209736

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Nicholas JM, Cornelius MW, Tchorz KM, et al. A two institution experience with 226 endoscop- ically placed jejunal feeding tubes in critically ill surgical patients. Am J Surg 2003
  2. [CrossRef] Itkin M, DeLegge MH, Fang JC, et al. Multidisci- plinary Practical Guidelines for Gastrointestinal Access for Enteral Nutrition and Decompression from the Society of Interventional Radiology and American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, with Endorsement by Canadian Interventional Radiological Association (CIRA) and Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiolog- ical Society of Europe (CIRSE). Gastroenterology 2011
  3. [CrossRef] Zopf Y, Rabe C, Bruckmoser T, Maiss J, Hahn EG, Schwab D. Percutaneous endoscopic jejunos- tomy and jejunal extension tube through per- cutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a retro- spective analysis of success, complications and outcome. Digestion 2009
  4. [CrossRef] Srinathan S, Hamin T, Walter S, Tan A, Unruh H, Guyatt G. Jejunostomy tube feeding in patients undergoing esophagectomy. Can J Surg 2013
  5. [CrossRef] Shin JH, Park A-W. Updates on percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy/gastrojejunostomy 13. Braunschweig CL, Levy P, Sheean PM, Wang X. and jejunostomy. Gut Liver 2010
  6. 4 Suppl 1:S25. [CrossRef] Kwon RS, Banerjee S, Desilets D, et al. Enteral nutrition access devices. Gastrointest Endosc 2010
  7. [CrossRef] Lyon SM, Pascoe DM. Percutaneous gastrosto- my and gastrojejunostomy. Semin Intervent Radiol 2004
  8. [CrossRef] Enweluzo C, Aziz. Gastroparesis: a review of current and emerging treatment options. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 2013
  9. [CrossRef] Campos ACL, Marchesini JB. Recent advances in the placement of tubes for enteral nutrition. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 1999
  10. [CrossRef] Fan AC, Baron TH, Rumalla A, Harewood GC. Com- parison of direct percutaneous endoscopic jeju- nostomy and PEG with jejunal extension. Gastro- intest Endosc 2002
  11. [CrossRef] Kim CY, Patel MB, Miller MJ, Suhocki PV, Balius A, Smith TP. Gastrostomy-to-gastrojejunosto- my tube conversion: impact of the method of original gastrostomy tube placement. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010
  12. [CrossRef] Lu DS, Mueller PR, Lee MJ, Dawson SL, Hahn PF, Brountzos E. Gastrostomy conversion to trans- gastric jejunostomy: technical problems, causes of failure, and proposed solutions in 63 patients. Radiology 1993
  13. [CrossRef] Enteral compared with parenteral nu