A recent article describes a single-center retrospective review of the 1-Step Low-Profile percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG) tube (“EndoVive” from Boston Scientific) (JPGN 2014; 58: 616-20). The potential rationale for the 1-Step PEG tubes:
- 1-time procedure for a low-profile device
My personal experience with these devices is quite limited. However, I did have one patient who resumed walking after placement of a 1-step dome device gastrostomy tube. He had stopped walking several months before, mainly due to some mild neurological problems. After receiving this PEG tube, he said he was in so much pain when he was sitting down that he started walking again. He was able to continue walking after switching to a different gastrostomy tube. This particular ‘miracle’ explains one of the pitfalls of this device. This patient had an embedded bolster.
In the current series, the authors’ conclusion was that the 1-step PEG “has complication rates and outcomes comparable with standard PEGs.” However, their reported results suggest a higher rate of complications: embedded bolster occurred in 5%, cellulitis in 23% (6.6% needing IV antibiotics), and perforation occurred in 0.8%.
Given the relatively small number of patients (n=121 who met inclusion) and retrospective nature of the study, whether these complication rates are significantly higher is a matter of debate. It should be noted that there may have been some selection bias given that there were only 31 patients less than one year in the study.
With regard to embedded PEG tubes, the authors note that this complication rate typically is 2.3% with a traditional PEG. The authors minimize the discrepancy of their higher rate, noting the “importance of choosing the right size of the 1-step PEG.” For those who perform this procedure, this admonition sounds easy but in practice can be problematic. In addition, the main advantage of this procedure is the “1-step” procedure. Yet in Figure 2, the authors note that 67 (more than 50%) underwent a change to a balloon device.
Bottomline: The authors state that the 1-step PEG, “in our opinion, is a preferable PEG technique for children who need long-term enteral feeds.” My opinion: I’m not a fan and think the 1-step, for initial placement, is less safe overall.
Related blog entries: