A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of Gastrostomy Techniques in Stroke Patients With Dysphagia: An Entropy-Balanced Analysis. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • This study compared the outcomes of two techniques for enteral nutrition—PEG and RIG—in adults with dysphagia from stroke during a specific time frame.
  • Among 217 stroke patients, RIG showed a significantly lower likelihood of reoperation, cerebrovascular incidents, and ICU admissions compared to PEG.
  • The study suggests RIG may be a safer option for enteral feeding in stroke patients, but highlights that patient-specific factors could impact choice and outcomes of the feeding method.

Article Abstract

Introduction: Enteral nutrition is commonly placed via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) techniques. This study compared perioperative outcomes of PEG and RIG in adults with dysphagia caused by cerebral infarction.

Methods: Adult stroke patients who underwent either PEG or RIG between 2018 and 2020 at a tertiary care center were reviewed retrospectively. Differences in baseline characteristics between PEG and RIG patients were adjusted using entropy-balanced weights. Multivariable weighted logistic and linear regressions were subsequently developed to evaluate the independent association between RIG and outcomes of interest.

Results: 217 stroke patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 37 (17.0%) received PEG and 180 (83.0%) received RIG. Compared to PEG, patients with RIG were more commonly Medicare beneficiaries and had a higher burden of comorbidities as measured by the Charlson comorbidity index. Time to achieve goal feeds was comparable between PEG and RIG (3 d [interquartile range 2-5] vs 4 d [interquartile range 3-5], respectively, P = 0.059). After multivariate adjustment, RIG was associated with significantly lower odds of reoperation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.50, P = 0.005), cerebrovascular accident (AOR 0.24, 95% CI 0.00-0.74, P = 0.030), and intensive care unit admission (AOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.70, P = 0.017). Risk factors for in-hospital mortality among RIG included arrhythmia (AOR 6.54, 95% CI 1.67-15.48, P = 0.009), myocardial infarction (AOR 4.78, 95% CI 2.25-10.23, P = 0.009), and obesity (AOR 4.48, 95% CI 1.03-9.61, P = 0.047).

Conclusions: While both techniques are effective methods of enteral feeding in stroke patients, RIG may confer lower perioperative morbidity. Local referral patterns and individual patient comorbidities could influence outcomes following PEG or RIG, necessitating careful patient selection.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2024.09.064DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

peg rig
20
stroke patients
16
rig
12
peg
8
outcomes peg
8
patients rig
8
[interquartile range
8
patients
6
95%
6
aor
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!