Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for enteral feeding: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundPercutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) are minimally invasive gastrostomy techniques for individuals requiring prolonged enteral feeding. Recent meta‐analyses concerning their efficacy and safety mainly included retrospective studies and yielded conflicting results. This meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare efficacy, safety, and procedure time between PRG and PEG for enteral feeding.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible RCTs comparing PRG and PEG for enteral feeding through February 23, 2024. The primary outcome was technical success. The secondary outcomes were (1) adverse events (AEs), (2) mortality, and (3) procedure time. We used the random‐effects model to calculate pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% CIs for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively.ResultsFive RCTs with 544 patients (268 PRG and 276 PEG) were included. There was similar technical success (RR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.98–1.05; I² = 35%; moderate certainty of evidence because of inconsistency), overall mortality (RR = 1.25; 95% CI = 0.63–2.47; I² = 47%; very low certainty of evidence because of inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision), and overall AEs risk (RR = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.63–1.76; I² = 81%; low certainty of evidence because of inconsistency and imprecision) between the two groups. However, compared with PEG, the procedure time was longer in the PRG group (MD = 19.35 min; 95% CI = 0.95–37.75 min; I² = 98%; very low certainty of evidence because of inconsistency and imprecision).ConclusionPRG and PEG demonstrate similar efficacy and safety; however, the endoscopic technique may boast a shorter procedure time.