Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Perkütan endoskopik gastrostomi kullanımı ve hasta özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesi: Tek merkez deneyimi

Year 2022, Volume: 13 Issue: 47, 233 - 236, 15.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.17944/mkutfd.907632

Abstract

Amaç: Perkütanöz endoskopik gastrostomi(PEG) sıklıkla beslenme problemi olan ve uzun süreli tüple beslenme ihtiyacı olan bireylerde kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, öncelikle, kliniğimizde yıllar içinde değişen perkütanöz endoskopik gastrostomi kullanımı ve hasta özelliklerini ve PEG işlemi öncesi ve sonrası bazı biyokimyasal belirteçlerdeki değişimleri ve anlamlı olup olmadığını saptamaktı.

Yöntem: Ağustos 2014-Ağustos 2019 tarihleri arası merkezimizde perkütanöz endoskopik gastrostomi uygulanan 170 hastanın verileri retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Demografik özellikleri kaydedildikten sonra PEG öncesi ve PEG sonrası glukoz, üre, kreatinin, alt, ggt, albümin, kalsiyum, magnezyum, crp, wbc, hb, plt, ınr değerleri karşılaştırılmış ve değişkenlerin analizinde SPSS programı kullanıldı.

Bulgular: Çalışmaya dahil edilen 170 hastanın %52, 3’ü kadın, %47,7’si erkekti. Hastaların ortanca yaşı 72 yıldı (minimum: 17 yıl, maksimum: 104 yıl).2014 yılından başlayarak PEG uygulanan hasta sayısı 2019’e kadar yıllara göre sırasıyla 14, 20, 22, 25, 44, 45 idi (p=0.03) yıllara göre PEG açılma sıklığında istatistiki olarak anlamlı artış izlenmiştir. Hastaların PEG endikasyonu değerlendirilmiş olup serebrovasküler olay (SVO) her yıl için en sık sebepti, n: 76 (%44.6). Diğer PEG endikasyonlarını sırasıyla maligniteler n: 29 (%17), hipoksik iskemik ensefalopati n: 17 (%10), diğer sebepler n: 48 (%28.4) olarak görülmekteydi. Hastaların PEG açıldıktan sonra hastanede kalış süresi ortalama 11,3 gün olarak saptandı (Tablo 1).PEG öncesi ve sonrası bakılan değerlerinden üre, kreatinin ve magnezyum değerlerinde istastistiksel olarak değişme tespit edilmiştir (p<0.05).Diğer bakılan değerlerde istatistiki olarak anlamlı değişim tespit edilmemiştir.

Sonuç: Bu çalışmamızda kliniğimizde yıllar içinde değişen PEG kullanımı, hasta özelliklerini inceledik ve geriatrik hastalarda PEG güvenli bir yöntem olup hastalarda biyokimyasal bazı belirteçleri olumlu etkilemektedir.

References

  • Gauderer WL, Ponsky JL, İzant RJ. Gastrostomy without laparatomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatry Surg. 1980;15:872-875. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3468(80)80296-X
  • Ponsky JL, Gauderer MW, Stellato TA. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Review of 150 cases. Arch Surg. 1983;118:913-914. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1983.01390080021006
  • Lucendo AJ, Friginal-Ruiz AB. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: An update on its indications, management, complications, and care. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2014;106:529-539.
  • Hucl T, Spicak J. Complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;30:769-781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2016.10.002
  • Friginal-Ruiz AB, Lucendo AJ. Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: A Practical Overview on Its Indications, Placement Conditions, Management, and Nursing Care. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2015;38:354-366. https://doi.org/10.1097/SGA.0000000000000150
  • McWhirter JP, Pennington CR. Incidence and recognition of malnutrition in hospital. BMJ. 1994;308:945-948. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6934.945
  • Heyland DK. Nutritional support in the critically ill patient: a critical reviewof the evidence. Crit Care Clin. 1998;14:423-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-0704(05)70009-9
  • Braunschweig CL, Levy P, Shehan PM, et al. Enteral compared with parenteral nutrition: a meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;74:534-542. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/74.4.534
  • DeLegge MH. Enteral Access and Associated Complications. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2018;47:23-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gtc.2017.09.003
  • Çakır M, Tekin A, Küçükkartallar T, et al. Long-term results of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies. Dicle Tıp Dergisi 2012; 39:162-165. https://doi.org/10.5798/diclemedj.0921.2012.02.0120
  • Aksoy EK, Perkütan Endoskopik Gastrostomi Takılan Hastaların Uzun Dönem Takip Sonuçları ve Sağkalımı Etkileyen Faktörler Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası 2019; 72(2):179-183.
  • Ekin N, Perkütan endoskopik gastrostomi uygulama sonuçlarımız:113 olgunun değerlendirilmesi Dicle Medical Journal 2015;42(3):346-349. https://doi.org/10.5798/diclemedj.0921.2015.03.0587
  • Schurink CA, Tuynman H, Scholten P, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: complications and suggestions to avoid them. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepathol. 2001;13:819-823. https://doi.org/10.1097/00042737-200107000-00010
  • Finocchiaro C, Galletti R, Rovera G, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a long-term follow-up. Nutrition. 1997;13:520-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-9007(97)00030-0
  • Rimon E, Kagansky N, Levy S. Percutanous endoscopic gastrostomy; evidence of different prognosis in various patients subgroups. Age Ageing. 2005;34:353-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afi085

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy use and evaluation of patient characteristics: A single center experience

Year 2022, Volume: 13 Issue: 47, 233 - 236, 15.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.17944/mkutfd.907632

Abstract

Objective: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is often used in individuals with nutritional problems and in need of long-term tube feeding. The aim of this study was to determine the changes in the use of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and patient characteristics, and the changes in some biochemical markers before and after the PEG procedure, and whether it is significant or not.

Method: The data of 170 patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in our center between August 2014 and August 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Glucose, urea, creatinine, alt, ggt, albumin, calcium, magnesium, crp, wbc, hb, plt, ınr values of 170 patients were compared, and in the analysis of variables SPSS program used.

Results: The 170 patients included in the study were 52.3% female and 47.7% male. The median age of the patients was 72 years (minimum: 17 years, maximum: 104 years). Starting from 2014, the number of patients who received PEG was 14, 20, 22, 25, 44, 45 respectively, by years until 2019 (p = 0.03).A statistically significant increase was observed in the frequency of PEG opening by years. PEG indication of the patients was evaluated and cerebrovascular event (CVE) was the most common cause per year, n: 76 (44. 6%).Other PEG indications were malignancies n: 29 (17%),hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy n:17 (10%).The average length of stay in the hospital was 11. 3 days after PEG was opened (Table 1). The values checked before and after PEG There was a statistically significant change in urea, creatinine and magnesium values (p <0.05).There was no statistically significant change in the other values.

Conclusion: In this study, we examined the use of PEG, which has changed over the years in our clinic, and patient characteristics. PEG is a safe method in geriatric patients, and it positively affects some biochemical markers in patients.

References

  • Gauderer WL, Ponsky JL, İzant RJ. Gastrostomy without laparatomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatry Surg. 1980;15:872-875. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3468(80)80296-X
  • Ponsky JL, Gauderer MW, Stellato TA. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Review of 150 cases. Arch Surg. 1983;118:913-914. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1983.01390080021006
  • Lucendo AJ, Friginal-Ruiz AB. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: An update on its indications, management, complications, and care. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2014;106:529-539.
  • Hucl T, Spicak J. Complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;30:769-781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2016.10.002
  • Friginal-Ruiz AB, Lucendo AJ. Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: A Practical Overview on Its Indications, Placement Conditions, Management, and Nursing Care. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2015;38:354-366. https://doi.org/10.1097/SGA.0000000000000150
  • McWhirter JP, Pennington CR. Incidence and recognition of malnutrition in hospital. BMJ. 1994;308:945-948. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6934.945
  • Heyland DK. Nutritional support in the critically ill patient: a critical reviewof the evidence. Crit Care Clin. 1998;14:423-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-0704(05)70009-9
  • Braunschweig CL, Levy P, Shehan PM, et al. Enteral compared with parenteral nutrition: a meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;74:534-542. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/74.4.534
  • DeLegge MH. Enteral Access and Associated Complications. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2018;47:23-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gtc.2017.09.003
  • Çakır M, Tekin A, Küçükkartallar T, et al. Long-term results of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies. Dicle Tıp Dergisi 2012; 39:162-165. https://doi.org/10.5798/diclemedj.0921.2012.02.0120
  • Aksoy EK, Perkütan Endoskopik Gastrostomi Takılan Hastaların Uzun Dönem Takip Sonuçları ve Sağkalımı Etkileyen Faktörler Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası 2019; 72(2):179-183.
  • Ekin N, Perkütan endoskopik gastrostomi uygulama sonuçlarımız:113 olgunun değerlendirilmesi Dicle Medical Journal 2015;42(3):346-349. https://doi.org/10.5798/diclemedj.0921.2015.03.0587
  • Schurink CA, Tuynman H, Scholten P, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: complications and suggestions to avoid them. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepathol. 2001;13:819-823. https://doi.org/10.1097/00042737-200107000-00010
  • Finocchiaro C, Galletti R, Rovera G, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a long-term follow-up. Nutrition. 1997;13:520-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-9007(97)00030-0
  • Rimon E, Kagansky N, Levy S. Percutanous endoscopic gastrostomy; evidence of different prognosis in various patients subgroups. Age Ageing. 2005;34:353-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afi085
There are 15 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Clinical Sciences
Journal Section Original Articles
Authors

Mehmet Önder Ekmen 0000-0002-2034-6469

Ahmet Uyanıkoğlu 0000-0003-4881-5244

Savaş Cumali Efe 0000-0001-6593-5702

Süleyman Sari 0000-0003-2085-7741

Necati Yenice 0000-0003-3783-3762

Publication Date December 15, 2022
Submission Date April 23, 2021
Acceptance Date June 23, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Volume: 13 Issue: 47

Cite

Vancouver Ekmen MÖ, Uyanıkoğlu A, Efe SC, Sari S, Yenice N. Perkütan endoskopik gastrostomi kullanımı ve hasta özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesi: Tek merkez deneyimi. mkutfd. 2022;13(47):233-6.