Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Volume 21, Issue 4 , Pages 527-533, April 2010

Radiologic versus Endoscopic Placement of Percutaneous Gastrostomy in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: Multivariate Analysis of Tolerance, Efficacy, and Survival

  • Alexandre Blondet, MD PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Angers, 4, rue Larrey, Angers Cedex 09, F-49933 France
  • ,
  • Jérôme Lebigot, MD,PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Angers, 4, rue Larrey, Angers Cedex 09, F-49933 France
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to J.L.
  • ,
  • Guillaume Nicolas, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neurology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Angers, 4, rue Larrey, Angers Cedex 09, F-49933 France
  • ,
  • Jérôme Boursier, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Angers, 4, rue Larrey, Angers Cedex 09, F-49933 France
  • ,
  • Bruno Person, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Angers, 4, rue Larrey, Angers Cedex 09, F-49933 France
  • ,
  • Laurent Laccoureye, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Angers, 4, rue Larrey, Angers Cedex 09, F-49933 France
  • ,
  • Christophe Aubé, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Angers, 4, rue Larrey, Angers Cedex 09, F-49933 France

Received 4 June 2009; received in revised form 6 November 2009; accepted 30 November 2009. published online 22 February 2010.

Purpose

To compare percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in terms of tolerance, efficacy, and survival in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Materials and Methods

Forty patients with ALS (17 men; mean age, 66.1 years; range, 39–83 y) underwent 21 PEG and 22 PRG attempts (including three unsuccessful PEG attempts) from 1999 to 2005. To assess tolerance and efficacy, a successful and well tolerated placement was defined as any successful placement with no major or minor local complications or pain requiring opioid analgesic agents. Univariate analysis was performed for all recorded parameters, followed by multivariate analysis for successful and well tolerated placement, 6-month mortality rate, and survival.

Results

General success rates were 85.7% for PEG and 100% for PRG. Pain was more frequent in PRGs (81.8% vs 52.4%; P = .05). Successful and well tolerated placement was seen in 81.8% of PRGs and 57.1% of PEGs (P = 0.1). Advanced age (P = .02) and PRG (P = .07) were predictive of successful and well tolerated placement. The interval from diagnosis to placement (P = .001) and ability to perform spirometry (P = .002) were predictive of survival. Oximetry measurements (P = .007) and interval from diagnosis to placement (P = .02) were predictive of mortality at 6 months.

Conclusions

PRG is more efficacious and better tolerated than PEG, essentially because it avoids the respiratory decompensation that may occur in PEG. Therefore, PRG should be preferred in cases of ALS. Survival is linked to ALS evolution and not to the choice of PRG or PEG placement.

Abbreviations: ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, PEG, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, PO2, partial arterial O2 pressure, PRG, percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 None of the authors have identified a conflict of interest.

PII: S1051-0443(09)01669-8

doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2009.11.022

Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Volume 21, Issue 4 , Pages 527-533, April 2010