Furthermore, PEG feeding did not confer any survival benefits compared with nasogastric tube feeding. Only a minority of patients on nasogastric tube feeding later selleck chemical progressed to PEG feeding. The practical implication of this study is that early enteral feeding via nasogastric tube may reasonably be considered in dysphagic stroke patients. PEG should be reserved for patients who cannot swallow safely after 2–3 weeks of nasogastric feeding. Conversely, PEG can be used earlier in selected groups of patients as a temporary bridge to oral nutrition.2 The use of pre-treatment placement of PEG in the management of patients with head and neck

cancer has been shown to Selleck MK-8669 be effective.13 According to Naik et al.,14 younger patients (aged < 65 years) and those with a diagnosis of

localized head and neck cancer are more likely to be able to have the PEG removed eventually and resume oral nutrition. In view of the significant morbidity and mortality associated with PEG, are there good predictors to help us identify patients who may not benefit from the procedure and those who are able to resume adequate oral nutrition without using PEG? In this issue of Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Yokohama et al.15 present their data on the possibility of oral feeding after induction of percutaneous endoscopic (-)-p-Bromotetramisole Oxalate gastrostomy. In their study, they retrospectively analyzed data from 302 patients who underwent PEG at their hospital; the majority of patients were elderly and malnourished with significant co-morbidities. The main indication was dysphagia predominantly due to cerebrovascular disorders. They examined patients who could orally ingest after PEG insertion and analyzed the possible predictive factors leading to oral feeding postoperatively. Postoperative oral feeding was defined as those who could adequately ingest orally

to allow reduction or discontinuation of enteral feeding after PEG insertion. Enteral nutrition using the gastro-fistula was started 4 days after PEG placement. Patients without a swallowing reflex were excluded. In the authors’ study cohort, 15% of cases were able to convert to oral feeding after PEG; a small proportion did not require any enteral feeding post-PEG. Five independent predictive factors were identified for postoperative oral feeding: (i) absence of dysphagia or complete aphagia; (ii) younger age; (iii) favorable functional status; (iv) presence of post-traumatic encephalopathy; and (v) preoperative swallowing training. The authors concluded that for patients with these predictive factors present, indications for PEG should be carefully considered.