Zohaib Ahmed, Umair Iqbal, Muhammad Aziz, Syeda Faiza Arif, Joyce Badal, Umer Farooq, Wade Lee-Smith, Manesh Kumar Gangwani, Faisal Kamal, Abdallah Kobeissy, Asif Mahmood, Ali Nawras, Harshit S Khara, Bradley D Confer, Douglas G Adler
{"title":"放射胃造口术与经皮内镜胃造口术进行肠内喂养的结果和并发症:最新的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Zohaib Ahmed, Umair Iqbal, Muhammad Aziz, Syeda Faiza Arif, Joyce Badal, Umer Farooq, Wade Lee-Smith, Manesh Kumar Gangwani, Faisal Kamal, Abdallah Kobeissy, Asif Mahmood, Ali Nawras, Harshit S Khara, Bradley D Confer, Douglas G Adler","doi":"10.14740/gr1593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are commonly utilized to establish access to enteral nutrition. However, data comparing the outcomes of PEG vs. PRG are conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an updated systemic review and meta-analysis comparing PRG and PEG outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched until February 24, 2023. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, tube leakage, tube dislodgement, perforation, and peritonitis. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, infectious complications, and aspiration pneumonia. All analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial search revealed 872 studies. Of these, 43 of these studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis. Of 471,208 total patients, 194,399 received PRG and 276,809 received PEG. PRG was associated with higher odds of 30-day mortality when compared to PEG (odds ratio (OR): 1.205, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.015 - 1.430, I<sup>2</sup> = 55%). In addition, tube leakage and tube dislodgement were higher in the PRG group than in PEG (OR: 2.231, 95% CI: 1.184 - 4.2 and OR: 2.602, 95% CI: 1.911 - 3.541, respectively). Perforation, peritonitis, bleeding, and infectious complications were higher with PRG than PEG.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PEG is associated with lower 30-day mortality, tube leakage, and tube dislodgement rates than PRG.</p>","PeriodicalId":12461,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology Research","volume":"16 2","pages":"79-91"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e0/1c/gr-16-079.PMC10181338.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes and Complications of Radiological Gastrostomy vs. Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy for Enteral Feeding: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Zohaib Ahmed, Umair Iqbal, Muhammad Aziz, Syeda Faiza Arif, Joyce Badal, Umer Farooq, Wade Lee-Smith, Manesh Kumar Gangwani, Faisal Kamal, Abdallah Kobeissy, Asif Mahmood, Ali Nawras, Harshit S Khara, Bradley D Confer, Douglas G Adler\",\"doi\":\"10.14740/gr1593\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are commonly utilized to establish access to enteral nutrition. However, data comparing the outcomes of PEG vs. PRG are conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an updated systemic review and meta-analysis comparing PRG and PEG outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched until February 24, 2023. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, tube leakage, tube dislodgement, perforation, and peritonitis. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, infectious complications, and aspiration pneumonia. All analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial search revealed 872 studies. Of these, 43 of these studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis. Of 471,208 total patients, 194,399 received PRG and 276,809 received PEG. PRG was associated with higher odds of 30-day mortality when compared to PEG (odds ratio (OR): 1.205, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.015 - 1.430, I<sup>2</sup> = 55%). In addition, tube leakage and tube dislodgement were higher in the PRG group than in PEG (OR: 2.231, 95% CI: 1.184 - 4.2 and OR: 2.602, 95% CI: 1.911 - 3.541, respectively). Perforation, peritonitis, bleeding, and infectious complications were higher with PRG than PEG.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PEG is associated with lower 30-day mortality, tube leakage, and tube dislodgement rates than PRG.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gastroenterology Research\",\"volume\":\"16 2\",\"pages\":\"79-91\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e0/1c/gr-16-079.PMC10181338.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gastroenterology Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1593\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1593","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Outcomes and Complications of Radiological Gastrostomy vs. Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy for Enteral Feeding: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are commonly utilized to establish access to enteral nutrition. However, data comparing the outcomes of PEG vs. PRG are conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an updated systemic review and meta-analysis comparing PRG and PEG outcomes.
Methods: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched until February 24, 2023. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, tube leakage, tube dislodgement, perforation, and peritonitis. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, infectious complications, and aspiration pneumonia. All analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software.
Results: The initial search revealed 872 studies. Of these, 43 of these studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis. Of 471,208 total patients, 194,399 received PRG and 276,809 received PEG. PRG was associated with higher odds of 30-day mortality when compared to PEG (odds ratio (OR): 1.205, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.015 - 1.430, I2 = 55%). In addition, tube leakage and tube dislodgement were higher in the PRG group than in PEG (OR: 2.231, 95% CI: 1.184 - 4.2 and OR: 2.602, 95% CI: 1.911 - 3.541, respectively). Perforation, peritonitis, bleeding, and infectious complications were higher with PRG than PEG.
Conclusion: PEG is associated with lower 30-day mortality, tube leakage, and tube dislodgement rates than PRG.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
