{"title":"经皮内镜胃管置入术后早期喂养与晚期喂养的比较分析:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Mahesh Gajendran, Eric Smith, Priyadarshini Loganathan, Iqra Kazi, Mohan Babu, Umapathy Chandraprakash","doi":"10.1007/s10620-024-08654-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In clinical practice, tube feedings have been delayed after the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement. Previous studies, including a meta-analysis in 2008, have shown that it is safe to start tube feeding ≤ 4 h of PEG tube placement. However, it is still a common practice to delay the initiation of tube feeding up to 24 h after PEG tube placement. We have performed an updated analysis of studies comparing early versus delayed tube feedings following PEG placement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Major databases like PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched in June 2022 for randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies reporting on comparative outcomes with early (< or = 4 h) versus delayed (> 4 h) feeding after PEG tube placement in adult patients. The primary outcomes in our study include complication rates and mortality rates within 72 h of the procedure. The outcomes were reported as pooled odds ratio (95% confidence interval (CI) (Moole et al. in Indian J Gastroenterol. 35:323-330, 2016), p value, I<sup>2</sup> values).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 212 individuals in the early feeding group and 215 individuals in the late feeding group were analyzed from six studies. The pooled odds ratio of total complication events between early and late feed groups was 0.86 (CI 0.51-1.45, p = 0.58). The pooled odds ratio of fever, vomiting, and local infection was 0.94 (CI 0.186-4.74, p = 0.94), 1.0 (CI 0.38-2.65, p = 0.9), and 1.25 (0.36-4.3, p = 0.72), respectively, between early and late feeding post-PEG tube placement. In conclusion, this meta-analysis confirms that early feeding ≤ 4 h after PEG placement does not increase the odds of poor outcomes or mortality, and it is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective alternative to delayed feeding. Furthermore, early feeding may decrease hospital stays and healthcare costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":11378,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of Early Versus Late Feeding Post-percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mahesh Gajendran, Eric Smith, Priyadarshini Loganathan, Iqra Kazi, Mohan Babu, Umapathy Chandraprakash\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10620-024-08654-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In clinical practice, tube feedings have been delayed after the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement. Previous studies, including a meta-analysis in 2008, have shown that it is safe to start tube feeding ≤ 4 h of PEG tube placement. However, it is still a common practice to delay the initiation of tube feeding up to 24 h after PEG tube placement. We have performed an updated analysis of studies comparing early versus delayed tube feedings following PEG placement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Major databases like PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched in June 2022 for randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies reporting on comparative outcomes with early (< or = 4 h) versus delayed (> 4 h) feeding after PEG tube placement in adult patients. The primary outcomes in our study include complication rates and mortality rates within 72 h of the procedure. The outcomes were reported as pooled odds ratio (95% confidence interval (CI) (Moole et al. in Indian J Gastroenterol. 35:323-330, 2016), p value, I<sup>2</sup> values).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 212 individuals in the early feeding group and 215 individuals in the late feeding group were analyzed from six studies. The pooled odds ratio of total complication events between early and late feed groups was 0.86 (CI 0.51-1.45, p = 0.58). The pooled odds ratio of fever, vomiting, and local infection was 0.94 (CI 0.186-4.74, p = 0.94), 1.0 (CI 0.38-2.65, p = 0.9), and 1.25 (0.36-4.3, p = 0.72), respectively, between early and late feeding post-PEG tube placement. In conclusion, this meta-analysis confirms that early feeding ≤ 4 h after PEG placement does not increase the odds of poor outcomes or mortality, and it is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective alternative to delayed feeding. Furthermore, early feeding may decrease hospital stays and healthcare costs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Digestive Diseases and Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Digestive Diseases and Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-024-08654-9\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-024-08654-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative Analysis of Early Versus Late Feeding Post-percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Introduction: In clinical practice, tube feedings have been delayed after the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement. Previous studies, including a meta-analysis in 2008, have shown that it is safe to start tube feeding ≤ 4 h of PEG tube placement. However, it is still a common practice to delay the initiation of tube feeding up to 24 h after PEG tube placement. We have performed an updated analysis of studies comparing early versus delayed tube feedings following PEG placement.
Methods: Major databases like PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched in June 2022 for randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies reporting on comparative outcomes with early (< or = 4 h) versus delayed (> 4 h) feeding after PEG tube placement in adult patients. The primary outcomes in our study include complication rates and mortality rates within 72 h of the procedure. The outcomes were reported as pooled odds ratio (95% confidence interval (CI) (Moole et al. in Indian J Gastroenterol. 35:323-330, 2016), p value, I2 values).
Results: A total of 212 individuals in the early feeding group and 215 individuals in the late feeding group were analyzed from six studies. The pooled odds ratio of total complication events between early and late feed groups was 0.86 (CI 0.51-1.45, p = 0.58). The pooled odds ratio of fever, vomiting, and local infection was 0.94 (CI 0.186-4.74, p = 0.94), 1.0 (CI 0.38-2.65, p = 0.9), and 1.25 (0.36-4.3, p = 0.72), respectively, between early and late feeding post-PEG tube placement. In conclusion, this meta-analysis confirms that early feeding ≤ 4 h after PEG placement does not increase the odds of poor outcomes or mortality, and it is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective alternative to delayed feeding. Furthermore, early feeding may decrease hospital stays and healthcare costs.
期刊介绍:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed, original papers addressing aspects of basic/translational and clinical research in gastroenterology, hepatology, and related fields. This well-illustrated journal features comprehensive coverage of basic pathophysiology, new technological advances, and clinical breakthroughs; insights from prominent academicians and practitioners concerning new scientific developments and practical medical issues; and discussions focusing on the latest changes in local and worldwide social, economic, and governmental policies that affect the delivery of care within the disciplines of gastroenterology and hepatology.