Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_WAISBERG_Percutaneous_endoscopic_gastrostomy_versus_nasogastric_tube_feeding_for_2012.PDF (513.14 KB)
Citações na Scopus
104
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2012
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
WILEY-BLACKWELL
Autores
GOMES JR., Claudio A. R.
LUSTOSA, Suzana A. S.
MATOS, Delcio
ANDRIOLO, Regis B.
WAISBERG, Jaques
Citação
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, n.3, article ID CD008096, 52p, 2012
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its prolonged use can lead to complications such as lesions to the nasal wing, chronic sinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia. Another method of infusion, percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG), is generally used when there is a need for enteral nutrition for a longer time period. There is a high demand for PEG in patients with swallowing disorders, although there is no consistent evidence about its effectiveness and safety as compared to NGT. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PEG as compared to NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances, by updating our previous Cochrane review. Search methods We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception to September 2011, as well as contacting main authors in the subject area. There was no language restriction in the search. Selection criteria We planned to include randomised controlled trials comparing PEG versus NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances or dysphagia and indications for nutritional support, with any underlying diseases. The primary outcome was intervention failure (e. g. feeding interruption, blocking or leakage of the tube, no adherence to treatment). Data collection and analysis Review authors performed selection, data extraction and evaluation of methodological quality of studies. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), respectively with the random-effects statistical model and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assumed statistical heterogeneity when I-2 > 50%. Main results We included nine randomised controlled studies. We did not identify new eligible studies published after our previous review literature search date (August 2009). Intervention failure occurred in 19/156 patients in the PEG group and 63/158 patients in the NGT group (RR 0.24, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.76, P = 0.01) in favour of PEG. There was no statistically significant difference between comparison groups in complications (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.11, P = 0.93). Authors' conclusions PEG was associated with a lower probability of intervention failure, suggesting the endoscopic procedure is more effective and safe as compared to NGT. There is no significant difference of mortality rates between comparison groups, and pneumonia irrespective of underlying disease (medical diagnosis). Future studies should include previously planned and executed follow-up periods, the gastrostomy technique, and the experience of the professionals to allow more detailed subgroup analysis.
Palavras-chave
Deglutition Disorders [complications], Enteral Nutrition [methods], Gastrostomy [adverse effects, methods], Intubation, Gastrointestinal [adverse effects, methods], Malnutrition [etiology, prevention & control], Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Failure, Adult, Humans
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/1546
Referências
  1. Anderson MR, 2004, CLIN NUTR, V23, P501, DOI 10.1016/j.clnu.2003.09.008
  2. Anis MK, 2006, BMC GASTROENTEROL, V24, P37
  3. Baeten C, 1992, Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl, V194, P95
  4. Barkmeier JM, 1998, CARDIOVASC INTER RAD, V21, P324, DOI 10.1007/s002709900269
  5. BASTOW MD, 1986, GUT, V27, P51, DOI 10.1136/gut.27.Suppl_1.51
  6. Bath PM, 2000, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, V2, DOI 10.1002/14651858
  7. Bath PMW, 2009, E COMMUNICATION 0716
  8. Chio A, 2004, J NEUROL NEUROSUR PS, V75, P645, DOI 10.1136/jnnp.2003.020347
  9. Corry J, 2008, J MED IMAG RADIAT ON, V52, P503, DOI 10.1111/j.1440-1673.2008.02003.x
  10. Corry J, 2008, E COMMUNICATION
  11. Dennis M, 2005, LANCET, V365, P2005, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66691-3
  12. Dennis M, 2006, HEALTH TECHNOL ASSES, V10, P1
  13. Dorman PJ, 1997, BRIT MED J, V315, P461
  14. Douzinas EE, 2006, WORLD J GASTROENTERO, V12, P114
  15. Dwolatzky T, 2001, CLIN NUTR, V20, P535, DOI 10.1054/clnu.2001.0489
  16. Finestone HM, 2003, CAN MED ASSOC J, V169, P1041
  17. GAUDERER MWL, 1980, J PEDIATR SURG, V15, P872, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3468(80)80296-X
  18. Gomes CAR, 2010, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD008096.pub2
  19. GRANT JP, 1988, ANN SURG, V207, P598, DOI 10.1097/00000658-198805000-00014
  20. Hamidon B B, 2006, Med J Malaysia, V61, P59
  21. Higgins J. P. T., 2011, COCHRANE HDB SYSTEMA
  22. Ho KM, 2006, INTENS CARE MED, V32, P639, DOI 10.1007/s00134-006-0128-3
  23. Kearns PJ, 1996, J PARENTERAL ENTERAL, V20, P374, DOI [10.1177/014860719602000513, DOI 10.1177/014860719602000513]
  24. Langmore SE, 2006, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD004030.pub2
  25. Ljungdahl M, 2006, SURG ENDOSC, V20, P1248, DOI 10.1007/s00464-005-0757-6
  26. Loser C, 2005, CLIN NUTR, V24, P848, DOI 10.1016/j.clnu.2005.06.013
  27. Marik PE, 2003, CRIT CARE, V7, pR46, DOI 10.1186/cc2190
  28. McClave, 2008, E COMMUNICATION
  29. McClave SA, 2005, CRIT CARE MED, V33, P324, DOI 10.1097/01.CCM.0000153413.46627.3A
  30. Mekhail TM, 2001, CANCER, V91, P1785, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(20010501)91:9<1785::AID-CNCR1197>3.0.CO;2-1
  31. Moher D, 2001, LANCET, V357, P1191, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04337-3
  32. Norton B, 1996, BRIT MED J, V312, P13
  33. PARK RHR, 1992, BRIT MED J, V304, P1406
  34. Pearce CB, 2002, POSTGRAD MED J, V78, P198, DOI 10.1136/pmj.78.918.198
  35. Plonk Jr WM, 2005, PRACTICAL GASTROENTE, V29, P16
  36. Potack Jonathan Z, 2008, Medscape J Med, V10, P142
  37. Ramel A, 2008, NUTRITION, V24, P1116, DOI 10.1016/j.nut.2008.05.025
  38. Schulz RJ, 2009, Z GERONTOL GERIATR, V42, P328, DOI 10.1007/s00391-008-0015-3
  39. STIEGMANN GV, 1990, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V36, P1, DOI 10.1016/S0016-5107(90)70911-X
  40. Tucker AT, 2003, LARYNGOSCOPE, V113, P1898, DOI 10.1097/00005537-200311000-00007
  41. WOLLMAN B, 1995, RADIOLOGY, V197, P699
  42. Yata M, 2001, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V53, pAB206

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/InCor