Skip to main content
Log in

Cost analysis of long-term feeding by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in cancer patients in an Italian health district

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate prospectively the cost of long-term feeding by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Cost analysis was carried out in 34 head and neck cancer patients, followed from the time of PEG placement to the death or the end of the study. Three main items were considered: (a) PEG placement (on an inpatient basis), subdivided into five subitems: the Freka FK-07 gastrostomy kit, materials and anaesthetic drugs used, antibiotics and antisecretory drugs, gastroscope amortization expenses and staff; (b) nutrition, considering the costs of enteral-feeding products, nutrition container and flexible tube connecting the container to the PEG; (c) patient care, dividing the patients into three groups: outpatients, home-care patients and outpatients shifting to home care during the follow-up. All patients had one medical and two nursing visits/month, and, if necessary, immediate additional access to a physician or nurse. The mean daily cost per patient of long-term feeding via PEG was obtained by adding up the mean daily costs per patient of the three items, and was compared with that of feeding via nasogastric tube, calculated in 11 patients using the same criteria. No procedure-related death nor periprocedural major or minor complications were observed. The 60-day mortality was 3/34. Seventeen patients were always seen on an outpatient basis and 8 were followed by our home-care unit; 9 outpatients shifted to home care during the follow-up. The mean duration of PEG use was 180.5 days (range 47–639). Two wound infections, treated with antibiotics, occurred during the follow-up. The mean daily costs of placement, nutrition and patient care were (Italian liras) L 2500, 24 510 and 1880 respectively (Deutschemarks: DM 2.08, 20.42 and 1.56), for a total mean daily cost of L 28,890 (DM 24.06), slightly higher than that of feeding via a nasogastric tube (L 27,340; DM 22.78). On the basis of the improved quality of life, as well as from the economic point of view, PEG can be considered the procedure of choice for enteral feeding of cancer patients, provided that a reasonably long survival can be expected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Apelgren KN, Zambos J (1989) Is percutaneous better than open gastrostomy? A clinical study in one surgical department. Am Surg 55:596–600

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gibson SE, Wenig BL (1992) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in the management of head and neck carcinoma. Laryngoscope 102:977–980

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gibson SE, Wenig BL, Watkins JL (1992) Complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in head and neck cancer patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 101:46–50

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hull MA, Rawlings J, Murray FE, Field J, McIntyre AS, Mahida YR, Hawkey CJ, Allison SP (1993) Audit of outcome of long-term enteral nutrition by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Lancet 341:869–872

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jones M, Santanello SA, Falcone RE (1990) Percutaneous endoscopic vs surgical gastrostomy. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 14:533–534

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kinney JA (1980) Caloric and nitrogen requirements in catabolic states. In: Karran SJ, Alberti KGM (eds) Practical nutritional support. Pitman, London, pp 81–93

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kirby DF, Craig RM, Tsang TK, Plotnick BH (1986) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies. A prospective evaluation and review of the literature. J Parent Enteral Nutr 10:155–159

    Google Scholar 

  8. Larson DE, Burton DD, Schroeder KW, Di Magno EP (1987) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: indications, success, complications and mortality in 314 consecutive patients. Gastroenterology 93:48–52

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mamel JJ (1989) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Am J Gastroenterol 84:703–710

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nelson JK, Palumbo PJ, O'Brien PC (1986) Home enteral nutrition: observations of a newly established program. Nutr Clin Pract 1:193–199

    Google Scholar 

  11. Park RHR, Allison MC, Lang J, Spence E, Morris AJ, Danesh BJZ, Russel RI, Mills PR (1992) Randomised comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding in patients with persisting neurological dysphagia. Br Med J 304:1406–1409

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sartori S, Trevisani L, Donati D, Gilli G, Tassinari D, Nielsen I, Malacarne P (1993) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Personal experience and preliminary results of a long-term follow-up. Riv Ital Nutr Parenter Enter 11:174–181

    Google Scholar 

  13. Stiegmann GV, Goff JS, Silas D, Pearlman N, Sun J, Norton L (1990) Endoscopic versus operative gastrostomy: final results of a prospective randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 36:1–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Taylor CA, Larson DE, Ballard DJ, Bergstrom LR, Silverstein MD, Zinmeister AR, Di Magno EP (1992) Predictors of outcome after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a community-based study. Mayo Clin Proc 67:1042–1049

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. The Criteria Committee of the New York Heart Association (1979) Nomenclature and criteria for diagnosis of diseases of the heart and great vessels, 8th edn. New York Heart Association, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Vaughan JR, Scott JS, Edelman DS, Unger SW (1991) Tracheostomy. A new indication for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. Am Surg 57:214–215

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wicks C, Gimson A, Vlavianos P, Lombard M, Panos M, Macmathuna P, Tudor M, Andrews K, Westaby D (1991) Assessment of the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube as part of an integrated approach to enteral feeding. Gut 33:613–616

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wolfsen HC, Kozarek RA, Ball TJ, Patterson DJ, Botoman VA, Ryan JA (1990) Long-term survival in patients undergoing percutaneous endocopic gastrostomy and jejunostomy. Am J Gastroenterol 85:1120–1122

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sartori, S., Trevisani, L., Tassinari, D. et al. Cost analysis of long-term feeding by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in cancer patients in an Italian health district. Support Care Cancer 4, 21–26 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01769870

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01769870

Key words

Navigation