Feeding via nasogastric tube or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. A comparison

Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 1992;194:95-8. doi: 10.3109/00365529209096035.

Abstract

When a patient needs enteral feeding, there are two methods to administer the nutrition. The method most used is the nasogastric tube (NGT), although in the literature little is published about the advantages and complications of the NGT. The second method is percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). A prospective randomized trial was started, and so far 90 patients have entered the study (46 NGT and 44 PEG). In four patients it was not possible to insert the NGT, and in three patients it was impossible to place the PEG. In both groups 6.5% aspiration was found. Nasal decubitus and swallowing problems were seen in 13% and 17%, respectively, in the NGT group. Intraperitoneal bleeding and abdominal pain were found in 2% and 11%, respectively, in the PEG group. Fixation of the patients was needed in 7% of the PEG and 22% in the NGT group. In eight patients in the NGT group the feeding had to be stopped owing to problems; in none of the PEG group was this necessary. The nursing staff awarded marks to each patient on a scale of 5 for the convenience of care (very good, 1; very bad, 5). This resulted in a mean score of 2.6 in the NGT and 2.0 in the PEG group. The score given by the patients was 2.3 in the NGT and 1.8 in the PEG group. There seems to be a clear preference for the PEG as a method for enteral nutrition.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial
  • Comparative Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Endoscopy
  • Enteral Nutrition / methods*
  • Female
  • Gastrostomy* / adverse effects
  • Humans
  • Intubation, Gastrointestinal* / adverse effects
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Prospective Studies
  • Punctures