findmyKOL
Clinical trialNCT04151030CompletedInterventional

Endoscopic Direct-PEG Placement in Patients Unable to Undergo Pull-PEG Procedure

SponsorKansas City Veteran Affairs Medical CenterEnrollment45Esophageal Stenosis and ObstructionGastrostomyHead and Neck Neoplasm
View the registry record on ClinicalTrials.gov

Summary

The lay summary the sponsor registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Placement of a feeding tube through a gastrostomy can be performed endoscopically or radiologically. While percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is most frequently performed using a "pull" technique, this method may not feasible in patients with malignant, or tight benign, esophageal stenosis. Further, the "pull" technique may drag tumor cells with the feeding tube and lead to implantation metastasis at the gastrostomy site. A clinical practice update by the American Gastroenterological Association has recommended that the pull-through PEG placement method should be avoided in all patients with oropharyngeal or esophageal cancer. It also recommends that the introducer/Push PEG method should be favored instead of the pull PEG. In such situations, an introducer-style, "Direct" gastrostomy tube can be placed endoscopically or radiologically. However, the published data comparing outcomes and safety of endoscopic "Direct" PEG (D-PEG) and interventional radiological PEG (IR-PEG) are very sparse. The D-PEG is performed under endoscopic visualization of the gastric wall which facilitates greater control and allows safe selection of gastrostomy site. Further, the presence of an endoscope enables transillumination to confirm the absence of intervening abdominal viscera between the abdominal wall and the anterior wall of the stomach. These advantages are lacking with the IR-PEG. We hypothesize that D-PEG is safer than IR-PEG. In this single center, non-randomized study, patients unable to undergo a conventional per-oral "Pull" PEG and needing a D-PEG will be prospectively enrolled. For the comparison arm, historical IR-PEG procedures at our center will be assessed. The technical success and rates of adverse events will be compared between the two arms. Approval from the Institutional review board has been obtained. Based on our experience, we estimate a sample size of 40 participants in each arm and anticipate completion of this pilot study by June 2021.

Investigators

The overall officials registered on this study. Names that resolve to a findmyKOL profile link to it; the rest are shown as registered.

A profile link is shown only when the registered name resolves to a person record with a confident, namesake-checked match; ambiguous names stay unlinked.

Sites

1 registered facility, with the per-site recruitment status where the registry publishes one. ClinicalTrials.gov does not publish per-site enrollment counts.

United States
  • Kansas City Va Medical Center

    Kansas City, Missouri, United States

Site investigator names are published by ClinicalTrials.gov only while a study recruits, so completed studies list sites without them.

Drugs studied

No drug or biological interventions are in our data for this study. It may test a procedure, device or behavioral intervention, or the intervention list isn't in our current snapshot. See the registry record ↗. Why? →

Registration & key dates

Registry attributes as recorded on the ClinicalTrials.gov study record.

Start
28 Jun 2019
Primary completion
1 Jul 2021
Completion
1 Jul 2021
Last update posted
1 Sept 2021
Registered enrollment
45
Registry id
NCT04151030

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, via the CTTI AACT database, data as of 24 Aug 2026. Registry facts are shown as registered by the study sponsor; findmyKOL does not interpret them.