Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Difficulties with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): a practical guide for the endoscopist

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a widely used and effective means of providing long-term nutrition in patients with inadequate oral intake. The demand for this intervention has risen steadily since the early 1990s. Endoscopists who perform PEG insertion have become increasingly concerned about inappropriate use of this intervention.

Aims

This review addresses the particular areas of difficulty, namely, dementia, stroke, aspiration pneumonia and use of PEG to facilitate discharge from hospital.

Methods

A Pubmed literature search and the author’s personal experience.

Conclusions

Strategies for improving patient selection and a practical approach to difficult decisions are described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NCEPOD (2004) National confidential enquiry into patient outcome and death: scoping our practice, NCEPOD, London. http://www.ncepod.org.uk

  2. Westaby D, Young A, O’Toole P et al (2010) The provision of a percutaenously placed enteral tube feeding service. Gut 59:1592–1605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Royal College of Physicians (2010) Oral feeding difficulties and dilemmas: a guide to practical care particularly towards the end of life. Royal College of Physicians, London

    Google Scholar 

  4. Finucane TE, Christmas C, Travis K (1999) Tube feeding in patients with advanced dementia: a review of the evidence. JAMA 282(14):1365–1370

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hoffer LJ (2006) Tube feeding in advanced dementia: the metabolic perspective. BMJ 333:1214–1215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Norton B, Homer-Ward M, Donnelly MT, Long RG, Holmes GKT (1996) A randomised prospective comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding after acute dysphagic stroke. BMJ 312:13–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dennis MS, Lewis SC, Warlow C (2005) Effect of timing and method of enteral tube feeding for dysphagic stroke patients (FOOD): a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Lancet 365:764–772

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hallenbeck JL (2003) Hydration, nutrition, and antibiotics in end-of-life care: tube feed or not tube feed? In: Palliative care perspectives, Chap 6. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 117–126

  9. Balan KK, Vinjamuri S, Maltby P et al (1998) Gastroesophageal reflux in patients fed by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): detection by a simple scintigraphic method. Am J Gastroenterol 93:946–949

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mitchell SL, Teno JM, Roy J et al (2003) Clinical and organizational factors associated with feeding tube use among nursing home residents with advanced cognitive impairment. JAMA 290:73–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Powers DA, Brown RO, Cown GS Jr et al (1986) Nutritional support team vs no team management of enteral nutritional support in a Veterans Administration Medical Center teaching hospital. JPEN 10:635–638

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kurien M, Sanders DS (2011) Improving outcomes following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): a seven-day waiting policy is essential. Clin Med 11(4):411

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Skitt LC, Hurley JJ, Turner JK et al (2011) Helping the general physician to improve outcomes after PEG insertion: how we changed our practice. Clin Med 11(2):132–137

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Callahan CM, Haag KM, Buchanan NN, Nisi R (1999) Decision-making for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy among older adults in a community setting. J Am Geriatr Soc 47(9):1105–1109

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ladas SD, Triantafyllou K, Liappas I et al (2002) Percutanous endoscopic gastrostomy: adequacy and quality of information given to decision makers. Dig Dis Sci 20:289–292

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Golan I, Ligumsky M, Brezis M (2007) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in hospitalized incompetent geriatric patients: poorly informed, constrained and paradoxical decisions. Isr Med Assoc J 9:839–842

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mitchell SL, Berkowitz RE, Lawson FM et al (2000) A cross-national survey of tube-feeding decisions in cognitively-impaired older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 48:391–397

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sharp HM, Shega JW (2009) Feeding tube placement in patients with advanced dementia: the beliefs and practice patterns of speech-language pathologists. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 18(3):222–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Consultant Gastroenterologist, Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland

    S. O’Mahony

Authors
  1. S. O’Mahony
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. O’Mahony.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Mahony, S. Difficulties with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): a practical guide for the endoscopist. Ir J Med Sci 182, 25–28 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-012-0845-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-012-0845-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation