This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Saalwachter Schulman, A. Articles by Sawyer, R. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Saalwachter Schulman, A. Articles by Sawyer, R. G. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Safety of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement in Patients With Existing Ventriculoperitoneal Shunts

From the University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia

Correspondence: Robert G. Sawyer, MD, University of Virginia, Departments of Surgery and Health Evaluation Sciences, Box 800709, Charlottesville, VA 22908-0709. Electronic mail may be sent to rws2k{at}virginia.edu.

Background: Because the insertion of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes (PEG) involves disruption of the gastrointestinal tract with potential peritoneal contamination, patients with indwelling ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunts could be at increased risk of meningitis, a potentially devastating infection. The safety of PEG placement in the presence of a VP shunt is unclear. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed that included all adult patients with existing VP shunts requiring PEG placement at a single university medical center over an approximate 9-year period from July 1995 to March 2004. Results: Thirty-nine patients who underwent PEG placement 2–564 days after shunt placement were identified. Two patients (5%) subsequently developed meningitis. Cerebrospinal fluid cultures demonstrated Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecalis. These infections occurred 2 and 15 months after PEG placement, respectively. At the time of PEG placement, 17 patients (44%) were receiving antibiotics for reasons other than operative prophylaxis, and 11 patients (28%) received prophylactic antibiotics. Both infected patients had received antibiotics at the time of PEG placement. Conclusions: These data constitute the largest series of patients with existing VP shunts undergoing PEG placement reported to date. When compared with the published 2%–5% infection rate for patients with VP shunts alone, our data do not suggest an increased risk of infection for patients after PEG placement. As the total number of adult patients requiring a PEG after VP shunt placement is low, multicenter studies should be carried out to better stratify this risk.

Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 29, No. 6, 442-444 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0148607105029006442


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Koc, A. Gercek, R. Gencosmanoglu, and N. Tozun Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in the Neurosurgical Intensive Care Unit: Complications and Outcome JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, November 1, 2007; 31(6): 517 - 520. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]