To push or to pull? A clinical audit on the efficacy and safety of the pull and push percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in oncological patients

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe peroral “pull” technique and the direct “push” procedure are the two main methods for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement. Although pull‐PEG is generally recommended as the first‐line modality, many oncological patients require a push‐PEG approach to prevent tumor seeding or overcome tumor‐related obstruction.ObjectiveWe aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of both PEG procedures in cancer patients.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed all consecutive PEG procedures within a tertiary oncological center. Patients were followed up with the hospital databases and National Cancer Registry to assess the technical success rate for PEG placement, the rate of minor and major adverse events (AEs), and 30‐day mortality rates. We compared those outcomes between the two PEG techniques. Finally, risk factors for PEG‐related adverse events were analyzed using a multivariable Cox proportional‐hazard regression model adjusted for patients' sex, age, performance status (ECOG), Body Mass Index (BMI), diabetes, chemoradiotherapy (CRT) status (pre‐/current‐/post‐treatment), and type of PEG.ResultsWe included 1055 PEG procedures (58.7% push‐PEG/41.4% pull‐PEG) performed in 994 patients between 2014 and 2021 (mean age 62.0 [±10.7] yrs.; 70.2% males; indication: head‐and‐neck cancer 75.9%/other cancer 24.1%). The overall technical success for PEG placement was 96.5%. Although the “push” technique had a higher rate of all AEs (21.4% vs. 7.1%, Hazard Ratio [HR]  = 2.9; 95% CI = 1.9–4.3, p < 0.001), most of these constituted minor AEs (71.9%), such as tube dislodgement. The methods had no significant difference regarding major AEs and 30‐day mortality rates. Previous CRT was associated with an increased risk of major AEs (hazard ratio = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.0–7.2, p = 0.042).ConclusionThe risk of major AEs was comparable between the push‐ and pull‐PEG techniques in cancer patients. Due to frequent tube dislodgement in push‐PEG, the pull technique may be more suitable for long‐term feeding. Previous CRT increases the risk of major AEs, favoring early (“prophylactic”) PEG placement when such treatment is expected.