Comparison of Foley catheter as a replacement gastrostomy tube with commercial replacement gastrostomy tube: a prospective randomized trial

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) provides a non-surgical alternative to long-term enteral feeding. The gastrostomy tube, however, may deteriorate, malfunction, or be accidentally expelled, requiring replacement. A commercial gastrostomy tube is commonly used for replacement. However, a comm...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gastrointestinal endoscopy 1994-03, Vol.40 (2), p.188-193
Hauptverfasser: Kadakia, Shailesh C., Cassaday, Michael, Shaffer, Richard T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 193
container_issue 2
container_start_page 188
container_title Gastrointestinal endoscopy
container_volume 40
creator Kadakia, Shailesh C.
Cassaday, Michael
Shaffer, Richard T.
description Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) provides a non-surgical alternative to long-term enteral feeding. The gastrostomy tube, however, may deteriorate, malfunction, or be accidentally expelled, requiring replacement. A commercial gastrostomy tube is commonly used for replacement. However, a commercial replacement gastrostomy tube is many times more expensive than a Foley catheter, and the two have never been compared. We compared the efficacy and safety of an all-silicone Foley catheter used as a replacement feeding gastrostomy tube with the effectiveness of a commercial replacement gastrostomy tube in 46 patients undergoing long-term enteral feedings per gastrostomy. Twenty-four patients were randomized to the Foley group and 22 patients to the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube group. The Foley catheter functioned well without need for replacement in 16 (66%) patients for 27.4±14.8 (mean±SD) weeks; the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube functioned in 13 (59%) patients for 24.5±13.6 weeks p > 0.05, NS). The Foley catheter needed to be replaced because of malfunction in 8 (34%) patients and the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube in 9 (41%) patients after 21.6±11.5 weeks and 19.3±9.3 weeks, respectively ( p > 0.05, NS). Neither the Foley catheter nor the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube migrated; this was the most striking finding, in contrast to case reports in the literature. Our data suggest that the Foley catheter can be safely used as a replacement gastrostomy tube; it is considerably cheaper than the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube, and its efficacy and complication rates are similar to those of the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube. (Gastrointest Endosc 1994;40:188-93.)
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0016-5107(94)70165-2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_76565901</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0016510794701652</els_id><sourcerecordid>76565901</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-665bfc532550b2e574b050f87d8ae6e6904a65cf0c322545dcd01f30841998933</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUU1v1DAQtSpQ2S79CZV8QvQQGDuxE_eCqlULSJU4AGfLcSbUKI5T29tq-Qv86brdVY9w8cgz783He4ScMfjAgMmP36G8lWDQvlfNeVs-ouJHZMVAtZVsW_WKrF4gb8hJSr8BoOM1OybHHbC647AifzfBLya6FGYaRnodJtxRa_ItZozUJGpoxGUyFj3Omf4yKceQcvA7mrc90geXb6kN3mO0zkz_BF-UZktJLGizu0cazTwE7_7gQHMs5Lfk9WimhKeHuCY_r69-bL5UN98-f91c3lS2YTxXUop-tKLmQkDPUbRNDwLGrh06gxKlgsZIYUewNeeiEYMdgI01dA1TqlN1vSbv9n3LMndbTFl7lyxOk5kxbJNupZBCFYXWROyBtmydIo56ic6buNMM9JMJ-tkE_aSwVo1-NkHzwjs7DNj2HocX1kH1Uv-0r2O58t5h1Mk6nC0OLhZt9BDcfyY8AieXmUo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>76565901</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Foley catheter as a replacement gastrostomy tube with commercial replacement gastrostomy tube: a prospective randomized trial</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Kadakia, Shailesh C. ; Cassaday, Michael ; Shaffer, Richard T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kadakia, Shailesh C. ; Cassaday, Michael ; Shaffer, Richard T.</creatorcontrib><description>Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) provides a non-surgical alternative to long-term enteral feeding. The gastrostomy tube, however, may deteriorate, malfunction, or be accidentally expelled, requiring replacement. A commercial gastrostomy tube is commonly used for replacement. However, a commercial replacement gastrostomy tube is many times more expensive than a Foley catheter, and the two have never been compared. We compared the efficacy and safety of an all-silicone Foley catheter used as a replacement feeding gastrostomy tube with the effectiveness of a commercial replacement gastrostomy tube in 46 patients undergoing long-term enteral feedings per gastrostomy. Twenty-four patients were randomized to the Foley group and 22 patients to the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube group. The Foley catheter functioned well without need for replacement in 16 (66%) patients for 27.4±14.8 (mean±SD) weeks; the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube functioned in 13 (59%) patients for 24.5±13.6 weeks p &gt; 0.05, NS). The Foley catheter needed to be replaced because of malfunction in 8 (34%) patients and the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube in 9 (41%) patients after 21.6±11.5 weeks and 19.3±9.3 weeks, respectively ( p &gt; 0.05, NS). Neither the Foley catheter nor the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube migrated; this was the most striking finding, in contrast to case reports in the literature. Our data suggest that the Foley catheter can be safely used as a replacement gastrostomy tube; it is considerably cheaper than the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube, and its efficacy and complication rates are similar to those of the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube. (Gastrointest Endosc 1994;40:188-93.)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0016-5107</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6779</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0016-5107(94)70165-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 8013820</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Catheters, Indwelling ; Costs and Cost Analysis ; Enteral Nutrition - instrumentation ; Female ; Gastrostomy - economics ; Gastrostomy - instrumentation ; Humans ; Intubation, Gastrointestinal - economics ; Intubation, Gastrointestinal - instrumentation ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Prospective Studies ; Time Factors</subject><ispartof>Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 1994-03, Vol.40 (2), p.188-193</ispartof><rights>1994 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-665bfc532550b2e574b050f87d8ae6e6904a65cf0c322545dcd01f30841998933</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-665bfc532550b2e574b050f87d8ae6e6904a65cf0c322545dcd01f30841998933</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016510794701652$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8013820$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kadakia, Shailesh C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cassaday, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaffer, Richard T.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Foley catheter as a replacement gastrostomy tube with commercial replacement gastrostomy tube: a prospective randomized trial</title><title>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</title><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><description>Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) provides a non-surgical alternative to long-term enteral feeding. The gastrostomy tube, however, may deteriorate, malfunction, or be accidentally expelled, requiring replacement. A commercial gastrostomy tube is commonly used for replacement. However, a commercial replacement gastrostomy tube is many times more expensive than a Foley catheter, and the two have never been compared. We compared the efficacy and safety of an all-silicone Foley catheter used as a replacement feeding gastrostomy tube with the effectiveness of a commercial replacement gastrostomy tube in 46 patients undergoing long-term enteral feedings per gastrostomy. Twenty-four patients were randomized to the Foley group and 22 patients to the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube group. The Foley catheter functioned well without need for replacement in 16 (66%) patients for 27.4±14.8 (mean±SD) weeks; the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube functioned in 13 (59%) patients for 24.5±13.6 weeks p &gt; 0.05, NS). The Foley catheter needed to be replaced because of malfunction in 8 (34%) patients and the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube in 9 (41%) patients after 21.6±11.5 weeks and 19.3±9.3 weeks, respectively ( p &gt; 0.05, NS). Neither the Foley catheter nor the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube migrated; this was the most striking finding, in contrast to case reports in the literature. Our data suggest that the Foley catheter can be safely used as a replacement gastrostomy tube; it is considerably cheaper than the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube, and its efficacy and complication rates are similar to those of the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube. (Gastrointest Endosc 1994;40:188-93.)</description><subject>Catheters, Indwelling</subject><subject>Costs and Cost Analysis</subject><subject>Enteral Nutrition - instrumentation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastrostomy - economics</subject><subject>Gastrostomy - instrumentation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intubation, Gastrointestinal - economics</subject><subject>Intubation, Gastrointestinal - instrumentation</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><issn>0016-5107</issn><issn>1097-6779</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1994</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUU1v1DAQtSpQ2S79CZV8QvQQGDuxE_eCqlULSJU4AGfLcSbUKI5T29tq-Qv86brdVY9w8cgz783He4ScMfjAgMmP36G8lWDQvlfNeVs-ouJHZMVAtZVsW_WKrF4gb8hJSr8BoOM1OybHHbC647AifzfBLya6FGYaRnodJtxRa_ItZozUJGpoxGUyFj3Omf4yKceQcvA7mrc90geXb6kN3mO0zkz_BF-UZktJLGizu0cazTwE7_7gQHMs5Lfk9WimhKeHuCY_r69-bL5UN98-f91c3lS2YTxXUop-tKLmQkDPUbRNDwLGrh06gxKlgsZIYUewNeeiEYMdgI01dA1TqlN1vSbv9n3LMndbTFl7lyxOk5kxbJNupZBCFYXWROyBtmydIo56ic6buNMM9JMJ-tkE_aSwVo1-NkHzwjs7DNj2HocX1kH1Uv-0r2O58t5h1Mk6nC0OLhZt9BDcfyY8AieXmUo</recordid><startdate>19940301</startdate><enddate>19940301</enddate><creator>Kadakia, Shailesh C.</creator><creator>Cassaday, Michael</creator><creator>Shaffer, Richard T.</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19940301</creationdate><title>Comparison of Foley catheter as a replacement gastrostomy tube with commercial replacement gastrostomy tube: a prospective randomized trial</title><author>Kadakia, Shailesh C. ; Cassaday, Michael ; Shaffer, Richard T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-665bfc532550b2e574b050f87d8ae6e6904a65cf0c322545dcd01f30841998933</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1994</creationdate><topic>Catheters, Indwelling</topic><topic>Costs and Cost Analysis</topic><topic>Enteral Nutrition - instrumentation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastrostomy - economics</topic><topic>Gastrostomy - instrumentation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intubation, Gastrointestinal - economics</topic><topic>Intubation, Gastrointestinal - instrumentation</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kadakia, Shailesh C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cassaday, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaffer, Richard T.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kadakia, Shailesh C.</au><au>Cassaday, Michael</au><au>Shaffer, Richard T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Foley catheter as a replacement gastrostomy tube with commercial replacement gastrostomy tube: a prospective randomized trial</atitle><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><date>1994-03-01</date><risdate>1994</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>188</spage><epage>193</epage><pages>188-193</pages><issn>0016-5107</issn><eissn>1097-6779</eissn><abstract>Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) provides a non-surgical alternative to long-term enteral feeding. The gastrostomy tube, however, may deteriorate, malfunction, or be accidentally expelled, requiring replacement. A commercial gastrostomy tube is commonly used for replacement. However, a commercial replacement gastrostomy tube is many times more expensive than a Foley catheter, and the two have never been compared. We compared the efficacy and safety of an all-silicone Foley catheter used as a replacement feeding gastrostomy tube with the effectiveness of a commercial replacement gastrostomy tube in 46 patients undergoing long-term enteral feedings per gastrostomy. Twenty-four patients were randomized to the Foley group and 22 patients to the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube group. The Foley catheter functioned well without need for replacement in 16 (66%) patients for 27.4±14.8 (mean±SD) weeks; the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube functioned in 13 (59%) patients for 24.5±13.6 weeks p &gt; 0.05, NS). The Foley catheter needed to be replaced because of malfunction in 8 (34%) patients and the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube in 9 (41%) patients after 21.6±11.5 weeks and 19.3±9.3 weeks, respectively ( p &gt; 0.05, NS). Neither the Foley catheter nor the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube migrated; this was the most striking finding, in contrast to case reports in the literature. Our data suggest that the Foley catheter can be safely used as a replacement gastrostomy tube; it is considerably cheaper than the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube, and its efficacy and complication rates are similar to those of the commercial replacement gastrostomy tube. (Gastrointest Endosc 1994;40:188-93.)</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>8013820</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0016-5107(94)70165-2</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0016-5107
ispartof Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 1994-03, Vol.40 (2), p.188-193
issn 0016-5107
1097-6779
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_76565901
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Catheters, Indwelling
Costs and Cost Analysis
Enteral Nutrition - instrumentation
Female
Gastrostomy - economics
Gastrostomy - instrumentation
Humans
Intubation, Gastrointestinal - economics
Intubation, Gastrointestinal - instrumentation
Male
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Time Factors
title Comparison of Foley catheter as a replacement gastrostomy tube with commercial replacement gastrostomy tube: a prospective randomized trial
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T02%3A16%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Foley%20catheter%20as%20a%20replacement%20gastrostomy%20tube%20with%20commercial%20replacement%20gastrostomy%20tube:%20a%20prospective%20randomized%20trial&rft.jtitle=Gastrointestinal%20endoscopy&rft.au=Kadakia,%20Shailesh%20C.&rft.date=1994-03-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=188&rft.epage=193&rft.pages=188-193&rft.issn=0016-5107&rft.eissn=1097-6779&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0016-5107(94)70165-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E76565901%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=76565901&rft_id=info:pmid/8013820&rft_els_id=S0016510794701652&rfr_iscdi=true