Brief Articles
Copyright ©2009 The WJG Press and Baishideng.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 7, 2009; 15(25): 3148-3152
Published online Jul 7, 2009. doi: 10.3748/wjg.15.3148
Table 1 Baseline patient characteristics n (%)
PEG/VP (n = 7)Control (n = 48)P value
Age (yr)55.3 ± 12.361.0 ± 16.60.387
Sex (M/F)5/231/171.000
Primary diagnosis0.897
Cerebrovascular disease7 (100)36 (75)
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis4 (8.3)
Hypoxic brain damage2 (4.2)
Parkinson’s disease2 (4.2)
Malignancy2 (4.2)
Aspiration pneumonia1 (2.1)
Pharyngeal paralysis1 (2.1)
Diabetes mellitus2 (28.6)10 (20.8)0.639
Tracheostomy6 (85.7)25 (52.1)0.122
Mean number of PEG placements1.3 ± 0.51.6 ± 1.10.459
Charlson’s index score3.0 ± 1.63.5 ± 1.90.504
Table 2 Diagnosis of complications n (%)
PEG/VP (n = 7)Control (n = 48)P value
Complications1 (14.3)6 (12.5)1.000
Wound infection13
Stomal leakage1
Bleeding1
Gastroesophageal reflux disease1
VP shunt infectionNo-
Table 3 Long-term outcomes in patients with PEG tubes and VP shunts
No. of caseSex/age (yr)PEG-VP shunt interval (d)Position of abdominal shunt catheterDMComplicationFollow-up (mo)Outcome
1F/67409Right-Wound infection7Doing well
2M/5765Right+-15Doing well
3M/57256Left+-8PEG change due to self-removal
4F/62831Right--6PEG change due to self-removal
5F/67274Right--5Doing well
6F/36259Right--1Doing well
7F/4267Left--3PEG removal
Table 4 Summary of published data on infections related to gastrostomy placement in patients with ventriculoperitoneal shunts
InvestigatorStudy designMethod of gastrostomyOrder of PEG & VP shuntnVP shunt infection rateInterval between PEG & VP shuntControl groupVP shunt infection rate in control groupAntibiotic used
Graham et al[17]ProspectivePercutaneous endoscopicVP→PEG150%2.2 wkNone-Cefazolin
Sane et al[18]RetrospectiveFluoroscopicVP→PEG239% (2/23)At least 4 wkNone-None
Taylor et al[19]RetrospectivePercutaneous endoscopicSimultaneous1650% (8/16)-VP shunt and tracheostomy without PEG0% (0/21)Yes (unspecified)
Baird et al[20]RetrospectivePercutaneous endoscopicVP→PEG60%33 dNone-Cefazolin
Schulman et al[21]RetrospectivePercutaneous endoscopicVP→PEG395% (2/39)43.1 dNone-72% received (unspecified)
Nabika et al[22]RetrospectivePercutaneous endoscopicBoth2317.4% (4/23)29.3 dOnly VP shunt4.9%Cefazolin
PEG→VP1225% (3/12)27.2 d(6/123)
VP→PEG119.1% (1/1139.2 d(P = 0.0519)
Roeder et al[23]RetrospectivePercutaneous endoscopic and surgicalBoth5512.7% (7/55)-Only PEG-90.9% received (unspecified)
PEG→VP3016.6% (5/30)
VP→PEG258% (2/25)
This studyRetrospectivePercutaneous endoscopicVP→PEG70% (0/7)308.7 dOnly PEG-Yes (unspecified)