Comparison of Primary Jejunostomy Tubes versus Gastrojejunostomy Tubes for Percutaneous Enteral Nutrition.
Kim, Charles Y. MD; Engstrom, Bjorn I. MD; Horvath, Jeffrey J. MD; Lungren, Matthew P. MD; Suhocki, Paul V. MD; Smith, Tony P. MD
Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology.
24(12):1845-1852, December 2013.
(Format: HTML, PDF)
Purpose: To evaluate technical success and long-term outcomes of percutaneous primary jejunostomy tubes for postpyloric enteral feeding compared with percutaneous gastrojejunostomy (GJ) tubes.
Materials and Methods: Over a 25-month interval, 41 consecutive patients (26 male; mean age, 55.9 y) underwent attempted fluoroscopy-guided direct percutaneous jejunostomy tube insertion. Insertions at previous jejunostomy tube sites were excluded. The comparison group consisted of all primary GJ tube insertions performed over a 12-month interval concomitant with the jejunostomy tube interval (N = 169; 105 male; mean age, 59.4 y). Procedural, radiologic, and clinical data were retrospectively reviewed. Intervention rates were expressed as events per 100 catheter-days.
Results: The technical success rate for percutaneous jejunostomy tube insertion was 96%, versus 93% for GJ tubes (P = .47). Mean fluoroscopy times were similar for jejunostomy and GJ tubes (9.8 vs 10.0 min, respectively; P value not significant). Jejunostomy tubes exhibited a lower rate of catheter dysfunction than GJ tubes, with catheter exchange rates of 0.24 versus 0.93, respectively, per 100 catheter-days (P = .045). GJ tube tip retraction into the stomach occurred in 9.5% of cases, at a rate of 0.21 per 100 catheter-days. Intervention rates related to leakage were 0.19 and 0.03 for jejunostomy and GJ tubes, respectively (P < .01). Jejunostomy and GJ tubes exhibited similar rates of catheter exchange for occlusion and replacement as a result of inadvertent removal. No major complications were encountered in either group.
Conclusions: Percutaneous insertion of primary jejunostomy tubes demonstrated technical success and complication rates similar to those of GJ tubes. Jejunostomy tubes exhibited a lower dysfunction rate but a higher leakage rate compared with GJ tubes.
(C) Copyright 2013 Society of Cardiovascular & Interventional Radiology