Gastrostomy TubeNCT05173935
Complications Associated With Primary Placement of Gastrostomy for Feeding
A study testing Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and Radiologically-inserted gastrostomy in people with Gastrostomy Tube, run by Mayo Clinic at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The purpose of the study is to compare pain, complications, and quality of life after gastrostomy tube is placed by either percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or radiologically-inserted gastrostomy (RIG) method. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Gastrostomy Tube
- What is being tested?
- Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and Radiologically-inserted gastrostomy
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 43 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 8 Dec 2017to 29 Jul 2021
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age greater than or equal to 18 years
- Cannot maintain adequate nutrition by mouth
Who cannot join
- Venting-only gastrostomy
- Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
- Coagulopathy with uncorrectable International Normalized Ratio (INR) greater than 1.5 or inability to hold anticoagulation
- Structural abnormality that would prevent one or both techniques
- Known severe esophageal stricture
- Obstructing malignancy in oropharynx or esophagus that prohibits pull-through technique
Show all 17Show fewer
- Neoplastic, inflammatory, or infiltrative disease of abdominal wall or gastric wall
- Known hepatomegaly
- Abdominal wall mesh
- Enteric functional abnormality
- Small bowel or colonic obstruction
- Gastric or small bowel dysmotility
- Active abdominal infection/peritonitis/enterocutaneous fistula
- Ascites
- Ventriculoperitoneal shunt
- Inpatient status
- Pregnant patient
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Mayo Clinic in Rochester
Rochester, Minnesota, 55905
About this study
Official title: Complications Associated With Primary Placement of Radiologically-Inserted Gastrostomy Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy for Feeding
The purpose of the study is to compare pain, complications, and quality of life after gastrostomy tube is placed by either percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or radiologically-inserted gastrostomy (RIG) method.
Read the detailed description
Objectives:
Primary objectives: to assess 1) pain and 2) major and minor complications with gastrostomy-tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Secondary objectives:
- To compare costs associated with each technique
- To compare anesthesia type used with each technique
- To assess patient quality of life before and after the procedure
Co-primary outcome measures:
Efficacy Outcome - Trajectory of the average pain score (question 3, Cleeland Brief Pain Inventory) through Week 6
Statistical Null Hypothesis: The model-based estimates of the pain scores trajectories will be co-incident for the two placement approaches RIG compared to PEG.
Safety Outcome - Minor and major complication rate per participant
Statistical Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with at least one major or minor complication will be equal between RIG and PEG groups
Methods:
All participants meeting criteria for placement of gastrostomy tube for nutrition and not having any exclusion criteria will be prospectively randomized at the initial Home Enteral Nutrition (HEN) visit with physician, nurse and dietician. The randomization will be performed with the use of a 4-block randomization tool, based on the inclusion criteria and will not be intentionally matched for other demographics. Participants will be randomized to either undergo RIG with an Interventional Radiologist or PEG with a Gastroenterologist. Sixty-four participants will be randomized into each group for a total accrual of 128 patients. Participants will be randomized to receive one of two widely-accepted standards of care. The research component will involve the use of questionnaires during routine post-placement follow-up to assess for pain, quality of life, and complications.
Radiologic technique:
Radiologically-inserted gastrostomy (RIG) tubes are placed in one of three ways: either using 1) a balloon to dilate the tract without gastropexy T-fasteners, 2) a balloon to dilate the tract with gastropexy T-fasteners or 3) a peel-away sheath with gastropexy T-fasteners. All of the procedures occur in the interventional radiology procedural suite and are performed after informed consent is obtained. The participant receives weight-based antibiotics intravenously. A temporary small nasogastric or orogastric tube is placed if one is not in place. Suitable site for percutaneous access into the stomach is localized on the abdomen, sometimes with the use of ultrasound to mark the liver edge. Participants may or may not have had a CT scan of the abdomen for stomach localization prior to the placement. The abdomen is prepped and draped in the usual sterile fashion. Local anesthesia alone or with the addition of moderate sedation, monitored anesthesia care, or general anesthesia is administered, depending on the needs of the participant. Participant may or may not receive intravenous glucagon. Air is insufflated into the stomach through the nasogastric tube under fluoroscopic guidance. One percent lidocaine for local anesthesia is instilled at the desired gastrostomy site and at the sites of T-fasteners, if used. An 18-gauge or micropuncture needle is advanced into the insufflated stomach under fluoroscopic guidance. Air is aspirated, and contrast medium is injected to confirm the intraluminal location of the needle(s). A stiff guidewire is advanced into the stomach or through the stomach to the ligament of Treitz. For the balloon-dilatation technique, the tract is dilated with a balloon, the gastrostomy tube is advanced into the stomach using the balloon in coaxial fashion, and then the dilating balloon is removed. For the technique that uses a peel-away sheath, the tract is serially dilated over the wire, and a peel away sheath is advanced over the wire into the stomach. For both techniques, a 16- or 18-French balloon-style gastrostomy tube is then advanced into the stomach lumen, and the guide wire is removed. If T-fasteners are used, they are then secured to the participant's skin. T-fasteners are designed to fall off at six weeks. The nasogastric tube is removed at the end of the procedure. Participants may use the tube for water and medications at two hours and may use the tube for feedings no sooner than four hours, but only after appropriate Home Enteral Nutrition follow-up.
Endoscopic technique:
All PEG placements are performed with anesthesia support and after informed consent is obtained. After the participant is appropriately sedated and antibiotic prophylaxis is given, the standard adult gastroscope is passed orally and a routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is performed to assess for any unknown pathology and to characterize if appropriate apposition of the anterior gastric wall and the abdominal wall can be accomplished. This requires insufflation of air or carbon dioxide through the scope and then palpation of the abdominal wall and/or observation of the abdominal wall for light trans-illumination to identify the site of best apposition of the two walls. This site is marked and then cleansed. Local lidocaine is infiltrated and a small stab wound may be made at the discretion of the endoscopist. Using sterile technique a needle is passed through the abdominal wall into the gastric lumen as observed endoscopically. Through this needle is passed a looped flexible wire which is grasped with a snare introduced through the scope and the wire is withdrawn out the mouth as the scope is removed. A 20-French gastrostomy tube is attached to the looped wire and the wire is pulled from the abdominal wall so the tube is pulled through the mouth and down the esophagus into the stomach and out the abdominal wall. The tube is pulled into position until the inner bumper is noted to be at the abdominal wall. The faceplate is then placed over the external tube to maintain position. At the discretion of the endoscopist the scope may be passed once more into the stomach to ensure proper positioning of the tube. The tube may be used for fluid or feedings at 4 hours after initial placement, but only after appropriate Home Enteral Nutrition follow-up.
Independent of whether RIG or PEG is placed, the participants will be followed by the Home Enteral Nutrition clinic, using the following protocol:
- Face-to-face visit with HEN nurse for site care and tube education and with HEN dietitian for instruction about provision of supplies and for administration of the first feeding together, to occur within 24 hours post-procedure.
- Phone call or secure message at 48-86 hours post-procedure to answer questions and ensure proper progression of feeding.
- Phone call or secure message or face-to-face visit 6 weeks post-procedure.
- Face-to-face visit with HEN dietitian and nurse for tube exchange, at 3 months for RIG and 9 months for PEG, if needed, for first tube replacement.
Length of study: Participants will be followed until tube removed or until 9 months, whichever is shorter.
Data Collection:
Study data collected will include pain, major and minor complications, quality of life, rates of early exchange of tube, and costs associated with each procedure.
- Conditions
- Gastrostomy Tube
- Being tested
- Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, Radiologically-inserted gastrostomy
- Keywords
- complication, quality of life, pain
- Medical subject headings
- Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomyProcedure or surgery
Gastrostomy tube placement using an endoscopic camera inserted via the mouth into the stomach to place the tube.
Radiologically-inserted gastrostomyProcedure or surgery
Gastrostomy tube placement using a temporary nasogastric tube placed from nose to stomach and fluoroscopy (x-rays).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| PEG Group | Active comparator | Subjects will gastrostomy tube placement via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) method. Receives: Procedure: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy |
| RIG Group | Active comparator | Subjects will have the placement of a gastrostomy tube via radiologically-inserted gastrostomy (RIG) method. Receives: Procedure: Radiologically-inserted gastrostomy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in pain with gastrostomy-tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Trajectory of the average pain score over time (question 3, Cleeland Brief Pain Inventory), which rates average pain in the past 24 hours, with 0 being no pain and 10 being pain as bad as can be imagined
Measured: Before the procedure, within 24 hours after procedure, at 48-96 hours after procedure, and at 6 weeks after procedure
Major and minor complications with gastrostomy-tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Assessment of the following major complications after procedure: Peritonitis, Abscess, Major bleeding requiring intervention and/or transfusion, Bowel perforation, Death; Assessment of the following minor complications after procedure: Minor bleeding, not requiring transfusion, Tube occluded, Tube malpositioned/fell out,Tube damaged, Skin erosion, Site redness, Site nodules/induration, Site exudate
Measured: Within 24 hours after procedure
Major and minor complications with gastrostomy-tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Assessment of the following major complications after procedure: Peritonitis, Abscess, Major bleeding requiring intervention and/or transfusion, Bowel perforation, Death; Assessment of the following minor complications after procedure: Minor bleeding, not requiring transfusion, Tube occluded, Tube malpositioned/fell out,Tube damaged, Skin erosion, Site redness, Site nodules/induration, Site exudate
Measured: At 6 weeks after procedure
Minor complications with gastrostomy-tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Assessment of the following complications after procedure: Tube occluded, Tube malpositioned/fell out, Tube damaged, Skin erosion, Site redness, Site nodules/induration, Site exudate
Measured: At 3 months, if tube still in place
Minor complications with gastrostomy-tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Assessment of the following complications after procedure: Tube occluded, Tube malpositioned/fell out, Tube damaged, Skin erosion, Site redness, Site nodules/induration, Site exudate
Measured: At 6 months, if tube still in place
Minor complications with gastrostomy-tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Assessment of the following complications after procedure: Tube occluded, Tube malpositioned/fell out, Tube damaged, Skin erosion, Site redness, Site nodules/induration, Site exudate
Measured: At 9 months, if tube still in place
Secondary outcomes (4)
Costs associated with gastrostomy tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Tally of costs associated.
Measured: Immediately after procedure completion
Anesthesia type associated with gastrostomy tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Documentation of the types of anesthesia used during procedure
Measured: Immediately after procedure completion
Patient quality of life associated with gastrostomy tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG, before and after the procedure
Measurement of the patient quality of life using the Short Form-8 Quality of Life (SF-8 QOL) inventory in which eight questions with five or six possible descriptive word answers exist, with the first answer of each question meaning a better outcome and the last answer of each question meaning a worse outcome
Measured: Before the procedure
Patient quality of life associated with gastrostomy tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG, before and after the procedure
Measurement of the patient quality of life using the Short Form-8 Quality of Life (SF-8 QOL) inventory in which eight questions with five or six possible descriptive word answers exist, with the first answer of each question meaning a better outcome and the last answer of each question meaning a worse outcome
Measured: At 6 weeks after procedure
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Dec 2021
- Study start8 Dec 2017
- Primary completion29 Jul 2021
- Study completion29 Jul 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Gastrostomy TubeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Mayo ClinicThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 43 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Mayo Clinic
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Melissa J. Neisen, Mayo Clinic
- Investigators
- Melissa Neisen, MD, Principal investigator, Mayo Clinic
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05173935
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 16-010077
- Status last verified
- Jan 2023
- First submitted
- 29 Nov 2021
- Last updated
- 11 Jan 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Jan 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Complications Associated With Primary Placement of Radiologically-Inserted Gastrostomy Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy for Feeding
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05173935
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 16-010077
- Conditions
- Gastrostomy Tube
- Keywords
- complication, quality of life, pain
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 43 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Mayo ClinicUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 8 Dec 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 29 Jul 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 29 Jul 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 30 Dec 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of the study is to compare pain, complications, and quality of life after gastrostomy tube is placed by either percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or radiologically-inserted gastrostomy (RIG) method.
Detailed description
Objectives:
Primary objectives: to assess 1) pain and 2) major and minor complications with gastrostomy-tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Secondary objectives:
- To compare costs associated with each technique
- To compare anesthesia type used with each technique
- To assess patient quality of life before and after the procedure
Co-primary outcome measures:
Efficacy Outcome - Trajectory of the average pain score (question 3, Cleeland Brief Pain Inventory) through Week 6
Statistical Null Hypothesis: The model-based estimates of the pain scores trajectories will be co-incident for the two placement approaches RIG compared to PEG.
Safety Outcome - Minor and major complication rate per participant
Statistical Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with at least one major or minor complication will be equal between RIG and PEG groups
Methods:
All participants meeting criteria for placement of gastrostomy tube for nutrition and not having any exclusion criteria will be prospectively randomized at the initial Home Enteral Nutrition (HEN) visit with physician, nurse and dietician. The randomization will be performed with the use of a 4-block randomization tool, based on the inclusion criteria and will not be intentionally matched for other demographics. Participants will be randomized to either undergo RIG with an Interventional Radiologist or PEG with a Gastroenterologist. Sixty-four participants will be randomized into each group for a total accrual of 128 patients. Participants will be randomized to receive one of two widely-accepted standards of care. The research component will involve the use of questionnaires during routine post-placement follow-up to assess for pain, quality of life, and complications.
Radiologic technique:
Radiologically-inserted gastrostomy (RIG) tubes are placed in one of three ways: either using 1) a balloon to dilate the tract without gastropexy T-fasteners, 2) a balloon to dilate the tract with gastropexy T-fasteners or 3) a peel-away sheath with gastropexy T-fasteners. All of the procedures occur in the interventional radiology procedural suite and are performed after informed consent is obtained. The participant receives weight-based antibiotics intravenously. A temporary small nasogastric or orogastric tube is placed if one is not in place. Suitable site for percutaneous access into the stomach is localized on the abdomen, sometimes with the use of ultrasound to mark the liver edge. Participants may or may not have had a CT scan of the abdomen for stomach localization prior to the placement. The abdomen is prepped and draped in the usual sterile fashion. Local anesthesia alone or with the addition of moderate sedation, monitored anesthesia care, or general anesthesia is administered, depending on the needs of the participant. Participant may or may not receive intravenous glucagon. Air is insufflated into the stomach through the nasogastric tube under fluoroscopic guidance. One percent lidocaine for local anesthesia is instilled at the desired gastrostomy site and at the sites of T-fasteners, if used. An 18-gauge or micropuncture needle is advanced into the insufflated stomach under fluoroscopic guidance. Air is aspirated, and contrast medium is injected to confirm the intraluminal location of the needle(s). A stiff guidewire is advanced into the stomach or through the stomach to the ligament of Treitz. For the balloon-dilatation technique, the tract is dilated with a balloon, the gastrostomy tube is advanced into the stomach using the balloon in coaxial fashion, and then the dilating balloon is removed. For the technique that uses a peel-away sheath, the tract is serially dilated over the wire, and a peel away sheath is advanced over the wire into the stomach. For both techniques, a 16- or 18-French balloon-style gastrostomy tube is then advanced into the stomach lumen, and the guide wire is removed. If T-fasteners are used, they are then secured to the participant's skin. T-fasteners are designed to fall off at six weeks. The nasogastric tube is removed at the end of the procedure. Participants may use the tube for water and medications at two hours and may use the tube for feedings no sooner than four hours, but only after appropriate Home Enteral Nutrition follow-up.
Endoscopic technique:
All PEG placements are performed with anesthesia support and after informed consent is obtained. After the participant is appropriately sedated and antibiotic prophylaxis is given, the standard adult gastroscope is passed orally and a routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is performed to assess for any unknown pathology and to characterize if appropriate apposition of the anterior gastric wall and the abdominal wall can be accomplished. This requires insufflation of air or carbon dioxide through the scope and then palpation of the abdominal wall and/or observation of the abdominal wall for light trans-illumination to identify the site of best apposition of the two walls. This site is marked and then cleansed. Local lidocaine is infiltrated and a small stab wound may be made at the discretion of the endoscopist. Using sterile technique a needle is passed through the abdominal wall into the gastric lumen as observed endoscopically. Through this needle is passed a looped flexible wire which is grasped with a snare introduced through the scope and the wire is withdrawn out the mouth as the scope is removed. A 20-French gastrostomy tube is attached to the looped wire and the wire is pulled from the abdominal wall so the tube is pulled through the mouth and down the esophagus into the stomach and out the abdominal wall. The tube is pulled into position until the inner bumper is noted to be at the abdominal wall. The faceplate is then placed over the external tube to maintain position. At the discretion of the endoscopist the scope may be passed once more into the stomach to ensure proper positioning of the tube. The tube may be used for fluid or feedings at 4 hours after initial placement, but only after appropriate Home Enteral Nutrition follow-up.
Independent of whether RIG or PEG is placed, the participants will be followed by the Home Enteral Nutrition clinic, using the following protocol:
- Face-to-face visit with HEN nurse for site care and tube education and with HEN dietitian for instruction about provision of supplies and for administration of the first feeding together, to occur within 24 hours post-procedure.
- Phone call or secure message at 48-86 hours post-procedure to answer questions and ensure proper progression of feeding.
- Phone call or secure message or face-to-face visit 6 weeks post-procedure.
- Face-to-face visit with HEN dietitian and nurse for tube exchange, at 3 months for RIG and 9 months for PEG, if needed, for first tube replacement.
Length of study: Participants will be followed until tube removed or until 9 months, whichever is shorter.
Data Collection:
Study data collected will include pain, major and minor complications, quality of life, rates of early exchange of tube, and costs associated with each procedure.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| PEG Group | Active comparator | Procedure: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomySubjects will gastrostomy tube placement via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) method. |
| RIG Group | Active comparator | Procedure: Radiologically-inserted gastrostomySubjects will have the placement of a gastrostomy tube via radiologically-inserted gastrostomy (RIG) method. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Age greater than or equal to 18 years
- Cannot maintain adequate nutrition by mouth
Key exclusion criteria (17 listed)
- Venting-only gastrostomy
- Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
- Coagulopathy with uncorrectable International Normalized Ratio (INR) greater than 1.5 or inability to hold anticoagulation
- Structural abnormality that would prevent one or both techniques
- Enteric functional abnormality
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomyGastrostomy tube placement using an endoscopic camera inserted via the mouth into the stomach to place the tube. | Procedure or surgery | PEG Group |
| Radiologically-inserted gastrostomyGastrostomy tube placement using a temporary nasogastric tube placed from nose to stomach and fluoroscopy (x-rays). | Procedure or surgery | RIG Group |
Primary outcome
Change in pain with gastrostomy-tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Time frame: Before the procedure, within 24 hours after procedure, at 48-96 hours after procedure, and at 6 weeks after procedure
Trajectory of the average pain score over time (question 3, Cleeland Brief Pain Inventory), which rates average pain in the past 24 hours, with 0 being no pain and 10 being pain as bad as can be imagined
Major and minor complications with gastrostomy-tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Time frame: Within 24 hours after procedure
Assessment of the following major complications after procedure: Peritonitis, Abscess, Major bleeding requiring intervention and/or transfusion, Bowel perforation, Death; Assessment of the following minor complications after procedure: Minor bleeding, not requiring transfusion, Tube occluded, Tube malpositioned/fell out,Tube damaged, Skin erosion, Site redness, Site nodules/induration, Site exudate
Major and minor complications with gastrostomy-tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Time frame: At 6 weeks after procedure
Assessment of the following major complications after procedure: Peritonitis, Abscess, Major bleeding requiring intervention and/or transfusion, Bowel perforation, Death; Assessment of the following minor complications after procedure: Minor bleeding, not requiring transfusion, Tube occluded, Tube malpositioned/fell out,Tube damaged, Skin erosion, Site redness, Site nodules/induration, Site exudate
Minor complications with gastrostomy-tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Time frame: At 3 months, if tube still in place
Assessment of the following complications after procedure: Tube occluded, Tube malpositioned/fell out, Tube damaged, Skin erosion, Site redness, Site nodules/induration, Site exudate
Minor complications with gastrostomy-tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Time frame: At 6 months, if tube still in place
Assessment of the following complications after procedure: Tube occluded, Tube malpositioned/fell out, Tube damaged, Skin erosion, Site redness, Site nodules/induration, Site exudate
Minor complications with gastrostomy-tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Time frame: At 9 months, if tube still in place
Assessment of the following complications after procedure: Tube occluded, Tube malpositioned/fell out, Tube damaged, Skin erosion, Site redness, Site nodules/induration, Site exudate
4 secondary outcomes
Costs associated with gastrostomy tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Time frame: Immediately after procedure completion
Anesthesia type associated with gastrostomy tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG
Time frame: Immediately after procedure completion
Patient quality of life associated with gastrostomy tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG, before and after the procedure
Time frame: Before the procedure
Patient quality of life associated with gastrostomy tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG, before and after the procedure
Time frame: At 6 weeks after procedure
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Jan 2023.
- Mayo Clinic Clinical TrialsLink provided by the sponsor.
Related trials for Gastrostomy Tube
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Soylent in Reducing Gastrostomy Tube Rates in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer Undergoing Chemoradiotherapy
Locally Advanced Head and Neck Carcinoma
Not yet recruiting
We Need to FEED: Facilitating Enteral Education for Discharge
Enteral Nutrition Feeding
Not yet recruiting
Parent Implemented Oral Nutrition, Eating, and Esophageal Reflexes Reintegration Protocol: RCT
Deglutition Disorders in Infants, Chronic Tube Feeding in Hospitalized Infants
Recruiting
Oral Intake of Enteral Nutrition Formula Preceding Placement and Feeding Via GTube and Its Impact on Formula Intolerance in pALS
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Gastrointestinal Intolerance
Active, not recruiting
Pea Protein Oral Nutrition Supplement for the Reduction of Gastrostomy Tube Placement Rate in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer Undergoing Chemoradiation Therapy
Locally Advanced Head and Neck Carcinoma
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Melissa Neisen, MD principal investigator
Mayo Clinic
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and Radiologically-inserted gastrostomy in people with Gastrostomy Tube, run by Mayo Clinic at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 17 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Jan 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in pain with gastrostomy-tube placement, comparing RIG with PEG (time frame: Before the procedure, within 24 hours after procedure, at 48-96 hours after procedure, and at 6 weeks after procedure). The study lists 6 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Jan 2023.