Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
UNKNOWN
PHASE4
500 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2020-11-30
2023-05-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
There are multiple EN feeding methods. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) was first introduced in 1980, and due to PEG being low cost, minimally invasive, and having no need for Bernal anesthetic in most cases, it is considered a better choice for the introduction of feeding than other methods. PEG tubes are usually entered for periods of tube feeding lasting more than 30 days, as well as when a nasogastric tube cannot but used for nutritional support. However, compared to naso-enteric tubes, PEG tubes are associated with fewer complications, greater patient comfort, better aesthetic appearance, and improved patient quality of life. For this reason, PEG is currently the method of choice for medium- and long- term enteral feeding. Previous studies have found complication rates within 30 days of PEG tube placement to be 10-15%.
Traditionally, post-PEG insertion, feeding was delayed until the next day for fear of peritoneal leakage risk after feeding. However, multiple studies have shown that feeding after PEG can be started early, within hours without a significant increase in the procedure-related morbidity or mortality and thereby reducing the healthier costs. There is currently no standard of practice for the timing of enteral feeding following PEG placement. Each group has different practice guidelines, and no national consensus has been established.
Studies have indicated that the initiation of tube feeding three to four hours after an uncomplicated PEG was safe, well-tolerated, and helped to reduce the hospital stay. A systematic analysis of five studies found that there were no significant differences between enteral feeds beginning at 3 hours versus feeds beginning at later times.
The investigator's current institution does not have a standard of practice for time to begin feeding after PEG tube placement; that decision is currently provider dependent. A survey of providers at the investigator's institutions indicated that the most common time to begin feeds is 6 hours, however, providers at the institution use varied times to beginning feeds between 0 and 24 hours after placement. The current literature supports a reduction in complications at feeds beginning under four hours. In fact, all studies investigating shorter time to feeds have found no associated increase in complications. No study to date has investigated immediately beginning tube feeds. There is no national consensus regarding feeding time after placement. Given the shown benefits of early enteral nutrition on reducing mortality and complications across a variety of conditions, the investigators believe early feeding has the strong potential to improve patient morbidity and mortality following PEG tube placement. This study aims to investigate whether beginning feeds immediately is a safe and effective management option for patients.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Delayed Feeds
Patients will receive tube feeds beginning at 6 hours after PEG tube placement. This is our institutions current practice
Intervention Type: Dietary
Delayed Feeding
Standard tube feeds begun at delayed time point
Immediate Feeds
Patients will receive tube feeds beginning immediately after PEG tube placement.
Intervention Type: Dietary
Immediate Feeding
Standard tube feeds begun at an earlier time point
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Immediate Feeding
Standard tube feeds begun at an earlier time point
Delayed Feeding
Standard tube feeds begun at delayed time point
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
* Patients receiving PEG tube placement by a member of a different hospital service
* Patients under the age of 18 years old
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Augusta University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Andrew Lawson
Assistant Professor, Trauma/Critical Care, General Surgery
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Bechtold ML, Matteson ML, Choudhary A, Puli SR, Jiang PP, Roy PK. Early versus delayed feeding after placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 Nov;103(11):2919-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.02108.x. Epub 2008 Aug 21.
Choudhry U, Barde CJ, Markert R, Gopalswamy N. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a randomized prospective comparison of early and delayed feeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996 Aug;44(2):164-7. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(96)70134-7.
Cristian D, Poalelungi A, Anghel A, Burcos T, Grigore R, Bertesteanu S, Richiteanu G, Grama F; -. Prophylactic Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) - The Importance of Nutritonal Support in Patients with Head and Neck Cancers (HNCs) or Neurogenic Dysphagia (ND). Chirurgia (Bucur). 2015 Mar-Apr;110(2):129-36.
Kudsk KA, Croce MA, Fabian TC, Minard G, Tolley EA, Poret HA, Kuhl MR, Brown RO. Enteral versus parenteral feeding. Effects on septic morbidity after blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma. Ann Surg. 1992 May;215(5):503-11; discussion 511-3. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199205000-00013.
McCarter TL, Condon SC, Aguilar RC, Gibson DJ, Chen YK. Randomized prospective trial of early versus delayed feeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998 Mar;93(3):419-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1998.00419.x.
Rahnemai-Azar AA, Rahnemaiazar AA, Naghshizadian R, Kurtz A, Farkas DT. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: indications, technique, complications and management. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jun 28;20(24):7739-51. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i24.7739.
Szary NM, Arif M, Matteson ML, Choudhary A, Puli SR, Bechtold ML. Enteral feeding within three hours after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement: a meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011 Apr;45(4):e34-8. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181eeb732.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
1656460-1
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id