首页> 外文期刊>Gastrointestinal Endoscopy >New introducer PEG gastropexy does not require prophylactic antibiotics: multicenter prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study.
【24h】

New introducer PEG gastropexy does not require prophylactic antibiotics: multicenter prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study.

机译:新引入的PEG腹泻患者不需要预防性抗生素:多中心前瞻性随机双盲安慰剂对照研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Peristomal infections are the most common complications of PEG, despite prophylactic antibiotics. The "introducer" PEG-placement technique avoids the sojourn of a PEG catheter through the oropharynx, and hence minimizes the chances of infectious complications. Despite the obvious potential advantage, this technique failed to gain popularity, mainly as a result of other associated risks and complications. Recently, a modified introducer endoscopic PEG-gastropexy technique was shown to be quite safe. The present study is the first study that evaluated the need of prophylactic antibiotics for "introducer" PEG. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of peristomal wound infections during the immediate 7-day postprocedure follow-up. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTINGS: Multicenter; a university tertiary-care hospital and a private practice endoscopy clinic. PATIENTS: A total of 633 patients undergoing PEG were assessed for inclusion. Ninety-seven patients who had malignant stenotic oropharyngeal stricture were randomized: group I (49 patients) received prophylactic ceftriaxone, and group II (48 patients) received a placebo. Both groups were similar in patient characteristics. INTERVENTIONS: Introducer PEG was performed by using the Freka Pexact-15 CH/FR, with the gastric wall nonsurgically sutured to the anterior abdominal wall by use of an endoscope. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The peristomal area was assessed daily for 7 days by using 2 different types of infection scores. RESULTS: Clinically significant wound reaction was observed in 1 patient in each group. Wound infection scores were marginally higher in the placebo group, but the differences in the values of infection scores between both the groups were not statistically significant during the 7-day post-PEG follow-up. LIMITATIONS: The introducer gastropexy kit is 5 times more expensive than the "pull" PEG. CONCLUSIONS: The new introducer PEG-gastropexy technique can be performed safely, without prophylactic antibiotics in patients potentially at high risk of peristomal infectious complications (those with advanced oropharyngeal malignancy) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00375414).
机译:背景:尽管预防性使用抗生素,但Peristomal感染是PEG最常见的并发症。 “引入器” PEG放置技术避免了PEG导管通过口咽的滞留,因此将感染并发症的机会降到最低。尽管具有明显的潜在优势,但由于其他相关风险和并发症,该技术未能获得普及。近来,一种改良的导引器内窥镜PEG胃外技术被证明是非常安全的。本研究是评估“引入剂” PEG预防性抗生素需求的第一项研究。目的:确定术后7天随访中骨膜伤口感染的发生率。设计:前瞻性,随机,双盲,安慰剂对照试验。地点:多中心;一家大学三级医院和一家私人执业内窥镜诊所。患者:共有633名接受PEG的患者被纳入评估。随机将患有恶性狭窄口咽狭窄的97例患者:I组(49例)接受预防性头孢曲松治疗,II组(48例)接受安慰剂治疗。两组患者的特征相似。干预措施:使用Freka Pexact-15 CH / FR进行PEG引入,使用内窥镜将胃壁非手术方式缝合至前腹壁。主要观察指标:使用2种不同的感染评分,每天评估皮膜区域,共7天。结果:每组1例患者均观察到临床上明显的伤口反应。安慰剂组的伤口感染评分略高,但在PEG随访7天后,两组之间的感染评分差异无统计学意义。局限性:导胃器套件比“拉”式PEG贵5倍。结论:新引入的PEG-胃蠕动术技术可​​以安全地进行,而对于有可能存在高的口周感染并发症风险(患有晚期口咽恶性肿瘤)的患者,无需使用预防性抗生素(ClinicalTrials.gov标识符NCT00375414)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号