Download PDF
Digestive Disease Interventions
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1771481
Review Article

Review of Percutaneous Transesophageal Gastrostomy: A Multi-Hospital Academic Institution's Case Series of 24 Patients

Joseph Frenkel
1   Department of Interventional Radiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York
,
Steven Krausz
1   Department of Interventional Radiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York
,
Jacob Cynamon
1   Department of Interventional Radiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York
,
Yosef Golowa
1   Department of Interventional Radiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York
,
David Hirschl
1   Department of Interventional Radiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Percutaneous transesophageal gastrostomy (PTEG) is a minimally invasive technique involving percutaneous placement of an enteral tube via an esophagostomy in patients for whom conventional gastrostomy is contraindicated. We present a series of 24 patients who received PTEG, discuss indications for the procedure, and review outcomes. A retrospective chart review of the EMR was performed for patients who received PTEG from March 2016 through October 2021. Twenty-four patients were identified, and their records were reviewed for placement indication, technical success, adverse events, feeding complications, and replacement. Twenty-four patients (aged 29–91) required gastric tube placement for either enteral feeding or palliative venting. Conventional gastrostomy was contraindicated for reasons including difficult anatomy (eight), gastric surgery (five), malignancy (four), ascites (four), and wounds/infections (three). Technical success rate for placement was 100%. Minor postprocedural complications included local cellulitis, significant tube clogging, and dislodgement. There was one major complication, a significant bleed through the catheter entry site, which was successfully treated with a carotid covered stent. PTEG is safe and effective and should be strongly considered for gastric drainage or provisional supplemental nutrition in patients for whom percutaneous gastrostomy is contraindicated or technically not feasible.

Keywords

transesophageal - transcervical - gastrostomy - feeding tube


Publication History

Received: 22 November 2022

Accepted: 23 June 2023

Article published online:
02 August 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Blumenstein I, Shastri YM, Stein J. Gastroenteric tube feeding: techniques, problems and solutions. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20 (26) 8505-8524
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Alverdy J, Chi HS, Sheldon GF. The effect of parenteral nutrition on gastrointestinal immunity. The importance of enteral stimulation. Ann Surg 1985; 202 (06) 681-684
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gauderer MWL, Ponsky JL, Izant Jr RJ. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 1980; 15 (06) 872-875
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Singal AK, Dekovich AA, Tam AL, Wallace MJ. Percutaneous transesophageal gastrostomy tube placement: an alternative to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with intra-abdominal metastasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71 (02) 402-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Udomsawaengsup S, Brethauer S, Kroh M, Chand B. Percutaneous transesophageal gastrostomy (PTEG): a safe and effective technique for gastrointestinal decompression in malignant obstruction and massive ascites. Surg Endosc 2008; 22 (10) 2314-2318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sanogo ML, Sherk W, Esparaz A, Marko X, Gemmete JJ, Shields J. Percutaneous transesophageal access for enteral feeding tube placement. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2020; 43 (01) 155-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Toh Yoon EW, Nishihara K. Percutaneous transesophageal gastro-tubing (PTEG) as an alternative long-term tube feeding procedure when gastrostomy is not feasible. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2017; 10 (12) 911-917
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Aramaki T, Arai Y, Inaba Y. et al. Phase II study of percutaneous transesophageal gastrotubing for patients with malignant gastrointestinal obstruction; JIVROSG-0205. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013; 24 (07) 1011-1017
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Edelman DS, Unger SW. Laparoscopic gastrostomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1991; 173 (05) 401
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Oishi H, Shindo H, Shirotani N, Kameoka S. A nonsurgical technique to create an esophagostomy for difficult cases of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Surg Endosc 2003; 17 (08) 1224-1227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yamamoto T, Enomoto T, Matsumura A. Percutaneous transesophageal gastrotubing: alternative tube nutrition for a patient with a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. Surg Neurol 2009; 72 (03) 278-279 , discussion 280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Mackey R, Chand B, Oishi H, Kameoka S, Ponsky JL. Percutaneous transesophageal gastrostomy tube for decompression of malignant obstruction: report of the first case and our series in the US. J Am Coll Surg 2005; 201 (05) 695-700
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Khalilzadeh O, Baerlocher MO, Shyn PB. et al. Proposal of a new adverse event classification by the Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2017; 28 (10) 1432-1437.e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar