Loading…
What to do When Decompressive Gastrostomies and Jejunostomies are not Options? A Scoping Review of Transesophageal Gastrostomy Tubes for Advanced Malignancies
Background In advanced malignant bowel obstruction, decompressive gastrostomy tubes (GTs) may not be feasible due to ascites, peritoneal carcinomatosis, and altered gastric anatomy. Whereas nasogastric tubes (NGTs) allow temporary decompression, percutaneous transesophageal gastrostomy tubes (PTEGs)...
Saved in:
Published in: | Annals of surgical oncology 2022, Vol.29 (1), p.262-271 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4688fe04866be8c690c9838ed9ce8d8db1f253090a79cedff406011cf27dbf493 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4688fe04866be8c690c9838ed9ce8d8db1f253090a79cedff406011cf27dbf493 |
container_end_page | 271 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 262 |
container_title | Annals of surgical oncology |
container_volume | 29 |
creator | Zhu, Clara Platoff, Rebecca Ghobrial, Gaby Saddemi, Jackson Evangelisti, Taylor Bucher, Emily Saracco, Benjamin Adams, Amanda Kripalani, Simran Atabek, Umur Spitz, Francis R. Hong, Young K. |
description | Background
In advanced malignant bowel obstruction, decompressive gastrostomy tubes (GTs) may not be feasible due to ascites, peritoneal carcinomatosis, and altered gastric anatomy. Whereas nasogastric tubes (NGTs) allow temporary decompression, percutaneous transesophageal gastrostomy tubes (PTEGs) are an alternative method for long-term palliative decompression. This study performed a scoping review to determine outcomes with PTEG in advanced malignancies.
Methods
A systematic literature search was performed to include all studies that reported the clinical results of PTEGs for malignancy. No language, national, or publication status restrictions were used.
Results
The analysis included 14 relevant studies with a total of 340 patients. In 11 studies, standard PTEGs were inserted with a rupture-free balloon’s placement into the mouth or nose and esophageal puncture under fluoroscopy or ultrasound, followed by a guidewire into the stomach with placement of a single-lumen tube. Of 340 patients, 65 (19.1%) had minor complications, and 5 (2.1%) had significant complications, including bleeding and severe aspiration pneumonia. Of 171 patients, 169 with PTEGs (98.8%) reported relief of nasal discomfort from NGT and alleviation of obstructive symptoms. The one randomized controlled trial reported a significantly higher quality of life with PTEGs than with NGTs.
Conclusions
When decompression for advanced malignancy is technically not feasible with a gastrostomy tube, the PTEG is a viable, safe option for palliation. The PTEG is associated with lower significant complication rates than the gastrostomy tube and significantly higher patient-derived outcomes than the NGT. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1245/s10434-021-10667-x |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2575070678</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2575070678</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4688fe04866be8c690c9838ed9ce8d8db1f253090a79cedff406011cf27dbf493</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcFu1DAQhi1ERUvhBTggS1y4BOzYcZwTWhVaQEWVYFGPlmOPd7NK7GAn2_ZleFa83dJWHDh59Puff2b0IfSKkne05NX7RAlnvCAlLSgRoi6un6AjWmWJC0mf5poIWTSlqA7R85Q2hNCakeoZOmS84oJLcoR-X671hKeAbcCXa_D4I5gwjBFS6raAz3SaYkhTGDpIWHuLv8Jm9g9KBOzDhC_GqQs-fcAL_MOEsfMr_B22HVzh4PAyap8ghXGtV6D7R6E3eDm3OcaFiBd2q70Bi7_pvlv5XOcBL9CB032Cl3fvMfp5-ml58rk4vzj7crI4Lwyrq2l3r3RAuBSiBWlEQ0wjmQTbGJBW2pa6smKkIbrOinWOE0EoNa6sbet4w47R233uGMOvGdKkhi4Z6HvtIcxJlVVdkZqIWmbrm3-smzBHn7dTpdhxYEKy7Cr3LpMvTRGcGmM36HijKFE7empPT2V66paeus5Nr--i53YAe9_yF1c2sL0h5S-_gvgw-z-xfwDaZqh1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2610663683</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What to do When Decompressive Gastrostomies and Jejunostomies are not Options? A Scoping Review of Transesophageal Gastrostomy Tubes for Advanced Malignancies</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Zhu, Clara ; Platoff, Rebecca ; Ghobrial, Gaby ; Saddemi, Jackson ; Evangelisti, Taylor ; Bucher, Emily ; Saracco, Benjamin ; Adams, Amanda ; Kripalani, Simran ; Atabek, Umur ; Spitz, Francis R. ; Hong, Young K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Clara ; Platoff, Rebecca ; Ghobrial, Gaby ; Saddemi, Jackson ; Evangelisti, Taylor ; Bucher, Emily ; Saracco, Benjamin ; Adams, Amanda ; Kripalani, Simran ; Atabek, Umur ; Spitz, Francis R. ; Hong, Young K.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
In advanced malignant bowel obstruction, decompressive gastrostomy tubes (GTs) may not be feasible due to ascites, peritoneal carcinomatosis, and altered gastric anatomy. Whereas nasogastric tubes (NGTs) allow temporary decompression, percutaneous transesophageal gastrostomy tubes (PTEGs) are an alternative method for long-term palliative decompression. This study performed a scoping review to determine outcomes with PTEG in advanced malignancies.
Methods
A systematic literature search was performed to include all studies that reported the clinical results of PTEGs for malignancy. No language, national, or publication status restrictions were used.
Results
The analysis included 14 relevant studies with a total of 340 patients. In 11 studies, standard PTEGs were inserted with a rupture-free balloon’s placement into the mouth or nose and esophageal puncture under fluoroscopy or ultrasound, followed by a guidewire into the stomach with placement of a single-lumen tube. Of 340 patients, 65 (19.1%) had minor complications, and 5 (2.1%) had significant complications, including bleeding and severe aspiration pneumonia. Of 171 patients, 169 with PTEGs (98.8%) reported relief of nasal discomfort from NGT and alleviation of obstructive symptoms. The one randomized controlled trial reported a significantly higher quality of life with PTEGs than with NGTs.
Conclusions
When decompression for advanced malignancy is technically not feasible with a gastrostomy tube, the PTEG is a viable, safe option for palliation. The PTEG is associated with lower significant complication rates than the gastrostomy tube and significantly higher patient-derived outcomes than the NGT.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1068-9265</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1534-4681</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10667-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34546480</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Ascites ; Balloon treatment ; Decompression ; Esophagus ; Fluoroscopy ; Gastric cancer ; Gastrointestinal Oncology ; Gastrostomy ; Humans ; Intubation, Gastrointestinal ; Jejunostomy ; Malignancy ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Oncology ; Ostomy ; Palliation ; Patients ; Peritoneal Neoplasms ; Quality of Life ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Surgery ; Surgical Oncology</subject><ispartof>Annals of surgical oncology, 2022, Vol.29 (1), p.262-271</ispartof><rights>Society of Surgical Oncology 2021</rights><rights>2021. Society of Surgical Oncology.</rights><rights>Society of Surgical Oncology 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4688fe04866be8c690c9838ed9ce8d8db1f253090a79cedff406011cf27dbf493</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4688fe04866be8c690c9838ed9ce8d8db1f253090a79cedff406011cf27dbf493</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34546480$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Clara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Platoff, Rebecca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghobrial, Gaby</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saddemi, Jackson</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evangelisti, Taylor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bucher, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saracco, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, Amanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kripalani, Simran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atabek, Umur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spitz, Francis R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hong, Young K.</creatorcontrib><title>What to do When Decompressive Gastrostomies and Jejunostomies are not Options? A Scoping Review of Transesophageal Gastrostomy Tubes for Advanced Malignancies</title><title>Annals of surgical oncology</title><addtitle>Ann Surg Oncol</addtitle><addtitle>Ann Surg Oncol</addtitle><description>Background
In advanced malignant bowel obstruction, decompressive gastrostomy tubes (GTs) may not be feasible due to ascites, peritoneal carcinomatosis, and altered gastric anatomy. Whereas nasogastric tubes (NGTs) allow temporary decompression, percutaneous transesophageal gastrostomy tubes (PTEGs) are an alternative method for long-term palliative decompression. This study performed a scoping review to determine outcomes with PTEG in advanced malignancies.
Methods
A systematic literature search was performed to include all studies that reported the clinical results of PTEGs for malignancy. No language, national, or publication status restrictions were used.
Results
The analysis included 14 relevant studies with a total of 340 patients. In 11 studies, standard PTEGs were inserted with a rupture-free balloon’s placement into the mouth or nose and esophageal puncture under fluoroscopy or ultrasound, followed by a guidewire into the stomach with placement of a single-lumen tube. Of 340 patients, 65 (19.1%) had minor complications, and 5 (2.1%) had significant complications, including bleeding and severe aspiration pneumonia. Of 171 patients, 169 with PTEGs (98.8%) reported relief of nasal discomfort from NGT and alleviation of obstructive symptoms. The one randomized controlled trial reported a significantly higher quality of life with PTEGs than with NGTs.
Conclusions
When decompression for advanced malignancy is technically not feasible with a gastrostomy tube, the PTEG is a viable, safe option for palliation. The PTEG is associated with lower significant complication rates than the gastrostomy tube and significantly higher patient-derived outcomes than the NGT.</description><subject>Ascites</subject><subject>Balloon treatment</subject><subject>Decompression</subject><subject>Esophagus</subject><subject>Fluoroscopy</subject><subject>Gastric cancer</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal Oncology</subject><subject>Gastrostomy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intubation, Gastrointestinal</subject><subject>Jejunostomy</subject><subject>Malignancy</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Ostomy</subject><subject>Palliation</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Peritoneal Neoplasms</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Oncology</subject><issn>1068-9265</issn><issn>1534-4681</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kcFu1DAQhi1ERUvhBTggS1y4BOzYcZwTWhVaQEWVYFGPlmOPd7NK7GAn2_ZleFa83dJWHDh59Puff2b0IfSKkne05NX7RAlnvCAlLSgRoi6un6AjWmWJC0mf5poIWTSlqA7R85Q2hNCakeoZOmS84oJLcoR-X671hKeAbcCXa_D4I5gwjBFS6raAz3SaYkhTGDpIWHuLv8Jm9g9KBOzDhC_GqQs-fcAL_MOEsfMr_B22HVzh4PAyap8ghXGtV6D7R6E3eDm3OcaFiBd2q70Bi7_pvlv5XOcBL9CB032Cl3fvMfp5-ml58rk4vzj7crI4Lwyrq2l3r3RAuBSiBWlEQ0wjmQTbGJBW2pa6smKkIbrOinWOE0EoNa6sbet4w47R233uGMOvGdKkhi4Z6HvtIcxJlVVdkZqIWmbrm3-smzBHn7dTpdhxYEKy7Cr3LpMvTRGcGmM36HijKFE7empPT2V66paeus5Nr--i53YAe9_yF1c2sL0h5S-_gvgw-z-xfwDaZqh1</recordid><startdate>2022</startdate><enddate>2022</enddate><creator>Zhu, Clara</creator><creator>Platoff, Rebecca</creator><creator>Ghobrial, Gaby</creator><creator>Saddemi, Jackson</creator><creator>Evangelisti, Taylor</creator><creator>Bucher, Emily</creator><creator>Saracco, Benjamin</creator><creator>Adams, Amanda</creator><creator>Kripalani, Simran</creator><creator>Atabek, Umur</creator><creator>Spitz, Francis R.</creator><creator>Hong, Young K.</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2022</creationdate><title>What to do When Decompressive Gastrostomies and Jejunostomies are not Options? A Scoping Review of Transesophageal Gastrostomy Tubes for Advanced Malignancies</title><author>Zhu, Clara ; Platoff, Rebecca ; Ghobrial, Gaby ; Saddemi, Jackson ; Evangelisti, Taylor ; Bucher, Emily ; Saracco, Benjamin ; Adams, Amanda ; Kripalani, Simran ; Atabek, Umur ; Spitz, Francis R. ; Hong, Young K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4688fe04866be8c690c9838ed9ce8d8db1f253090a79cedff406011cf27dbf493</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Ascites</topic><topic>Balloon treatment</topic><topic>Decompression</topic><topic>Esophagus</topic><topic>Fluoroscopy</topic><topic>Gastric cancer</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal Oncology</topic><topic>Gastrostomy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intubation, Gastrointestinal</topic><topic>Jejunostomy</topic><topic>Malignancy</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Ostomy</topic><topic>Palliation</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Peritoneal Neoplasms</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Oncology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Clara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Platoff, Rebecca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghobrial, Gaby</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saddemi, Jackson</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evangelisti, Taylor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bucher, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saracco, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, Amanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kripalani, Simran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atabek, Umur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spitz, Francis R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hong, Young K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Annals of surgical oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhu, Clara</au><au>Platoff, Rebecca</au><au>Ghobrial, Gaby</au><au>Saddemi, Jackson</au><au>Evangelisti, Taylor</au><au>Bucher, Emily</au><au>Saracco, Benjamin</au><au>Adams, Amanda</au><au>Kripalani, Simran</au><au>Atabek, Umur</au><au>Spitz, Francis R.</au><au>Hong, Young K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What to do When Decompressive Gastrostomies and Jejunostomies are not Options? A Scoping Review of Transesophageal Gastrostomy Tubes for Advanced Malignancies</atitle><jtitle>Annals of surgical oncology</jtitle><stitle>Ann Surg Oncol</stitle><addtitle>Ann Surg Oncol</addtitle><date>2022</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>262</spage><epage>271</epage><pages>262-271</pages><issn>1068-9265</issn><eissn>1534-4681</eissn><abstract>Background
In advanced malignant bowel obstruction, decompressive gastrostomy tubes (GTs) may not be feasible due to ascites, peritoneal carcinomatosis, and altered gastric anatomy. Whereas nasogastric tubes (NGTs) allow temporary decompression, percutaneous transesophageal gastrostomy tubes (PTEGs) are an alternative method for long-term palliative decompression. This study performed a scoping review to determine outcomes with PTEG in advanced malignancies.
Methods
A systematic literature search was performed to include all studies that reported the clinical results of PTEGs for malignancy. No language, national, or publication status restrictions were used.
Results
The analysis included 14 relevant studies with a total of 340 patients. In 11 studies, standard PTEGs were inserted with a rupture-free balloon’s placement into the mouth or nose and esophageal puncture under fluoroscopy or ultrasound, followed by a guidewire into the stomach with placement of a single-lumen tube. Of 340 patients, 65 (19.1%) had minor complications, and 5 (2.1%) had significant complications, including bleeding and severe aspiration pneumonia. Of 171 patients, 169 with PTEGs (98.8%) reported relief of nasal discomfort from NGT and alleviation of obstructive symptoms. The one randomized controlled trial reported a significantly higher quality of life with PTEGs than with NGTs.
Conclusions
When decompression for advanced malignancy is technically not feasible with a gastrostomy tube, the PTEG is a viable, safe option for palliation. The PTEG is associated with lower significant complication rates than the gastrostomy tube and significantly higher patient-derived outcomes than the NGT.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>34546480</pmid><doi>10.1245/s10434-021-10667-x</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1068-9265 |
ispartof | Annals of surgical oncology, 2022, Vol.29 (1), p.262-271 |
issn | 1068-9265 1534-4681 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2575070678 |
source | Springer Nature |
subjects | Ascites Balloon treatment Decompression Esophagus Fluoroscopy Gastric cancer Gastrointestinal Oncology Gastrostomy Humans Intubation, Gastrointestinal Jejunostomy Malignancy Medicine Medicine & Public Health Oncology Ostomy Palliation Patients Peritoneal Neoplasms Quality of Life Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Surgery Surgical Oncology |
title | What to do When Decompressive Gastrostomies and Jejunostomies are not Options? A Scoping Review of Transesophageal Gastrostomy Tubes for Advanced Malignancies |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T13%3A50%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20to%20do%20When%20Decompressive%20Gastrostomies%20and%20Jejunostomies%20are%20not%20Options?%20A%20Scoping%20Review%20of%20Transesophageal%20Gastrostomy%20Tubes%20for%20Advanced%20Malignancies&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20surgical%20oncology&rft.au=Zhu,%20Clara&rft.date=2022&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=262&rft.epage=271&rft.pages=262-271&rft.issn=1068-9265&rft.eissn=1534-4681&rft_id=info:doi/10.1245/s10434-021-10667-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2575070678%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4688fe04866be8c690c9838ed9ce8d8db1f253090a79cedff406011cf27dbf493%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2610663683&rft_id=info:pmid/34546480&rfr_iscdi=true |