AJR F and L Medical Products: Radiation Protection & More
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sy, K.
Right arrow Articles by Amaral, J. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sy, K.
Right arrow Articles by Amaral, J. G.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.07.3655
AJR 2008; 191:1169-1174
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

Safety and Effectiveness of Radiologic Percutaneous Gastrostomy and Gastro jejunostomy in Children with Cardiac Disease

Keiyan Sy1, Anne Dipchand2, Eshetu Atenafu3, Peter Chait4, Louise Bannister2, Michael Temple1, Philip John1, Bairbre Connolly1 and Joao G. Amaral1

1 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave., Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X8.
2 Department of Cardiology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
3 Department of Statistics–Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
4 Ellesmere X-ray Associates, Scarborough, ON, Canada.

Received January 9, 2008; accepted after revision April 13, 2008.

 
Address correspondence to J. G. Amaral (joao.amaral{at}sickkids.ca).

Supported by University of Toronto, Faculty of Medicine, Summer Student Research Scholarship Program.


Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy for providing nutritional support in children with cardiac disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Retrospective chart review of 58 children with cardiac disease who underwent radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy from November 2001 to June 2005 was conducted. Patient data were collected until January 2007. The patients' weights were collected at the time of insertion and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after insertion, and weight-for-age z-scores were calculated.

RESULTS. The mean weight-for-age z-score increased from –2.79 at the time of radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy insertion to –2.33 (p = 0.05) at 6 months after insertion, –1.89 (p = 0.001) at 12 months, –1.65 (p = 0.0002) at 18 months, and –1.40 (p = 0.0004) at 24 months. Repeated measures regression analysis showed a significant increase in weight-for-age z-score over time (p < 0.0001), with an estimated mean increase in weight-for-age z-score of 0.055 per month. No mortality was associated with the insertion or usage of radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy. Major complications included intestinal perforation (3.4%) and aspiration pneumonia (12.1%).

CONCLUSION. Radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy is a safe method for providing long-term nutritional support in children with cardiac disease and is effective for improving growth and nutrition in this group of patients.

Keywords: cardiac disease • congenital heart disease • gastrojejunostomy • gastrostomy • interventional radiology • nutrition


Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Congenital heart disease (CHD) occurs in approximately 0.4–1.2% of live births and encompasses a wide variety of mal formations of the heart and the major blood vessels [1, 2]. There is a wide spectrum of severity, with the more significant mal formations often being associated with feeding difficulties and failure to thrive [36]. Children with cardiac disease often have a normal birth weight but show poor weight gain and cannot maintain their growth after birth. The cause of this is thought to be multifactorial and may include factors such as inadequate caloric intake, increased oxygen consumption, hyper metabolism, reduced absorption, and feeding intolerance [4, 7]. These combined factors reflect the need for increased energy intake, and thus dietary intervention is often necessary to improve the nutritional status of these children.

Gastrostomy tubes and gastrojejunostomy tubes have been established as appropriate methods for providing long-term (> 30 days) enteral nutrition for pediatric patients [8, 9] including those with diseases such as cancer and cystic fibrosis [1012]. Several methods of gastrostomy placement have been described, including retrograde radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy. In adults, radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy insertions are considered less invasive than surgical gastrostomy or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy because of the lower incidence of major complications [13].

However, there have been very few studies focused on the use of retrograde radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy for nutritional support in children with CHD or cardiac disease. The main purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy for providing nutritional support in children with heart problems. A secondary objective was to determine the safety of radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy in these children as measured by its technical success, related complications, and mortality.


Materials and Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Patients
A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients with cardiac disease who underwent radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy at a tertiary pediatric hospital from November 2001 to June 2005. All procedures were performed by a pediatric interventional radiologist. Institutional research ethics board approval was obtained and informed consent was waived for this study. Patient demographics were obtained from electronic patient charts and included gestational age, sex, birth weight, age at gastrostomy insertion, and type of CHD. Clinical patient characteristics such as presence of reflux or aspiration before radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy were noted.

Patient weights were obtained from medical records at the time of inpatient admissions or clinic visits. Patients were followed up until January 2007 or until the gastrostomy tube was removed or the patient died. Patient weights were recorded at the time of insertion and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after tube placement. If there was no specific weight available at these time points, the available patient weights were plotted in individual graphs and the weight was estimated using a cubic linear regression model using functions included within the Microsoft Excel program. Weight percentiles and weight-for-age z-scores were calculated using a reference population from the National Center for Health Statistics/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data [14]. The z-score is a measure of distance in SD of a sample from the mean of this population. It allows the conversion of a raw score (in this case the weight-for-age) to a standardized score, considering a normal distribution of the population. The growth percentiles of preterm infants were calculated according to reference values for that specific population [15].

Complications related to radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy were also reviewed from the patients' charts. Major complications included peritonitis, aspiration pneumonia, sepsis, and death. Minor complications included granulation tissue formation, site infection requiring topical or systemic antibiotics, and intussusception (for gastrojejunostomy tubes only). These complications were then divided into early (< 30 days) and late (> 30 days). Tube maintenance issues, such as tube leakage, tube dislocation, tube blockage, tube kink, and tube migration, were classified separately and calculated as a rate per 1,000 tube days.

The two-tailed paired Student's t test was used to compare the difference in weight-for-age standardized scores (z-scores) from tube insertion to weights at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after tube insertion. Repeated measures regression analysis was also used in this study to evaluate the data longitudinally. Subgroup analysis of z-scores between preterm and term patients was performed using an independent Student's t test assuming unequal variance. A p value of < 0.05 was considered significant. For most analyses, SAS, version 9.1 (SAS Institute) was used.

Tube Placement Technique
Patients referred by cardiologists were assessed preoperatively by a multidisciplinary team (pediatrician, dietitian, and gastrostomy tube nurse) regarding the indication for a gastrostomy. The patient was then assessed for anesthetic requirements. Informed consent was obtained from the patient or patient's parent or legal guardian by the interventional radiologist. Risk of bleeding, infection, peritonitis, abdominal organ damage, tube misplacement, insertion failure, and death were discussed.

Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered in accordance with published guidelines [16]. The patient was then transferred to the interventional suite and sedated or anesthetized. The lower edges of the liver and spleen were marked on the skin using sonographic guidance and a barium enema was performed to delineate the colon. Glucagon 0.1–0.3 mg (Lilly Glucagon, Eli Lilly Canada) was given IV to produce gastroparesis. The stomach was then inflated through a nasogastric tube. The site for gastrostomy tube placement was chosen, and the skin was infiltrated with local anesthetic. The stomach was then punctured percutaneously with an 18-gauge needle loaded with a pediatric retention suture (Cope Pediatric Gastrointestinal Suture Anchor Set, Cook). Contrast material was injected to confirm the position of the needle, and the retention suture was deployed into the stomach with a 0.035-inch straight guidewire. The guidewire was then coiled in the stomach. The tract between the skin and the stomach was dilated with fascial dilators, and the gastrostomy tube (8.5-, 10.2-, or 12-French Ultrathane MAC-LOC Dawson-Mueller pigtail tube, Cook) was introduced over the wire into the stomach. Fluoroscopic images after contrast injection confirmed the proper intragastric position of the tube, clearance of the colon, evidence or absence of pneumoperitoneum, and absence of leaks or tube damage [8, 17]. The retention suture thread was wrapped in a small roll of gauze close to the skin, applying gentle tension on the anterior stomach wall. Fourteen days after the procedure, the retention suture thread was cut, and the retention suture was passed by the patient.


Figure 1
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1 Graph shows proportion of patients with gains in z-score over time. Dark gray indicates z-score gain, light gray indicates no gain.

 


Figure 2
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2 Boxplot graph shows means of z-scores over time.

 
If a gastrojejunostomy tube was required, access into the stomach was obtained using a similar technique as described. A 5-French directional catheter and a soft-tip guidewire were then introduced and maneuvered into the duodenum and proximal jejunum. The appro priate gastrojejunostomy catheter (8.5- or 10-French gastrojejunostomy tube or a Pediatric Carey–Alzate Tube (Cook) was advanced into the proximal jejunum over the guidewire.


Results
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Patient Characteristics
Fifty-eight children with cardiac disease (33 males and 25 females) underwent radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy at the Image Guided Therapy Centre during the study period. Fifty-three of these 58 (91.4%) children were born with age-corrected birth weights above the third percentile. The mean weight at birth was 2.93 ± 0.66 kg (range, 0.97–4.34 kg). Ten (17.2%) patients were born preterm with gestational ages ranging from 28 to 36 weeks (mean, 34 weeks). Twelve (20.7%) patients had low birth weights (< 2,500 g), and of these, seven were preterm.

The two most prevalent cardiac defects were single ventricles (29.3%) and right heart obstructive lesions (24.1%). Table 1 shows the general categories of cardiac disease for this cohort of patients. Ten (17.2%) patients ultimately underwent heart transplantation. Reflux and aspiration were detected in 23 patients (39.7%) through imaging and feeding studies. Clinical evidence of reflux or aspiration was suggested in 27 patients (46.6%). Forty-eight patients (82.8%) were taking antireflux medication before gastrostomy or gastrojejunostomy tube insertion. Paralysis of the vocal cords was documented in eight patients (13.8%). Eight patients (13.8%) died within the first year after gastrostomy or gastrojejunostomy tube insertion, but, in all patients, death was due to the underlying cardiac disease.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 1: Classification of Cardiac Disease

 

Radiologic Percutaneous Gastrostomy Insertion
The mean corrected age at the time of radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy insertion was 6.9 ± 7.1 months (range, 23 days to 47.5 months). The indications for radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy included a combination of failure to thrive (FTT), poor weight gain, and difficulties in feeding. At the time of the procedure, 96.6% of the patients (56/58) met the general definition of FTT, which is a weight at or below the third percentile (n = 44) or a drop of at least two growth percentile lines (n = 12). The mean weight-for-age z-score at the time of radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy insertions was –2.79 ± 1.21 (range, –5.86 to –0.15), which corresponds to a mean of the third growth percentile.

Radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy placement was successful in 57 of 58 patients (98.3%). Only one gastrojejunostomy tube insertion was unsuccessful because of a duodenal rupture requiring surgery. Fifty children initially had a gastrostomy tube inserted, six had gastrojejunostomy tubes inserted, and one had both a gastrostomy tube and gastrojejunostomy tube inserted at the same time. The procedures were completed under conscious sedation in 11 patients (19.0%), whereas 47 patients (81.0%) required general anesthesia (18 patients intubated).

Overall, major complications were seen in 15.5% (n = 9) of our population (Table 2). The total major short-term (≤ 30 days) complication rate was three of 58 (5.2%). The most significant complication was a patient who developed a duodenal rupture during gastrojejunostomy tube placement, as already mentioned. This patient underwent an emergent laparotomy and required a partial small-bowel resection, a surgical gastrostomy and jejunostomy insertion, and admission to the intensive care unit. This patient was subsequently included in all our analyses because the patient was still fed through an enterostomy tube. The other two patients developed aspiration pneumonia. Both patients had a documented risk of aspiration. No further episodes of aspiration pneumonia occurred in these two patients. The total major long-term (> 30 days) complication rate was six of 58 (10.3%). One patient (1.7%) had a bowel perforation after a gastrojejunostomy tube change that resulted in peritonitis and required operative repair. Five (8.6%) patients had aspiration pneumonia, three of whom had recurrent episodes. All five had histories or feeding studies that confirmed the risk of aspiration or reflux before the insertion of the gastrostomy tube. Of these five patients, two eventually required fundoplication. There were no cases of sepsis or death related to insertion or use of radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 2: Complications and Tube Maintenance Issues Related to Radiologic Percutaneous Gastrostomy

 

Short-term (≤ 30 days) minor complications included 12 episodes of site infections and two patients (3.4%) with granulation tissue. Five patients (8.6%) had issues related to tube maintenance (Table 3). Long-term (> 30 days) minor complications included 12 patients (20.7%) with site infections, 12 patients (20.7%) with granulation tissue, four patients (6.9%) with minor bleeding from the site, and 27 patients (46.6%) with tube maintenance issues. The most frequent tube maintenance issue was accidental dislodgement of the feeding tube, which occurred in 17 of 58 (29.3%) patients, with an incidence of 0.82 episodes per 1,000 tube days (Table 3). Intussusceptions occurred in four of 15 patients with gastrojejunostomy tubes (26.7%) with three of those four patients requiring conversion to a gastrostomy tube.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 3: Frequency of Tube Maintenance Issues per 1,000 Tube-Days

 

In total, there were 28 documented cases of superficial site infections in 23 patients during the study period. All episodes were treated with topical or oral antibiotics, with no progression to systemic infection or infective endocarditis. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common organism cultured.

The mean duration of tube usage at the end of the study period was 23.4 ± 15.3 months (range, 1 week to 60 months). Nine patients (18%) who originally had gastrostomy tubes inserted later had to undergo conversion to gastrojejunostomy tubes at a mean of 2.4 months (range, 0.2–5.8 months) because of intolerance to gastrostomy tube feeding, with persistent vomiting, reflux, or aspiration. Two of these nine patients required conversion back to a gastrostomy tube because of intussusception. Three pa tients who initially had gastrojejunostomy tubes required conversion to gastrostomy tubes (n = 2) and gastroduodenal tubes (n = 1) at a mean time of 2.7 months (range, 1.3–4.1 months) because of frequent vomiting (n = 1), intussusception (n = 1), and frequent blockage of the gastrojejunostomy tube (n = 1). Fifteen patients had their gastrostomy tube removed after 19.9 ± 13.7 months (range, 3–54.9 months) of tube usage.

Nutritional Status
On the basis of the last documented date in which the patient was still using a radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy, we were able to obtain weights for 49 of 58 (84.5%) patients at 6 months (seven patients died due to their cardiac condition, one patient had the tube removed, one patient was transferred to another health care institution), 43 of 58 (74%) patients at 12 months, 37 of 58 (64%) patients at 18 months, and 27 of 58 (46.6%) patients at 24 months.

All patients gained weight after insertion. Mean weight percentiles increased from the third percentile at radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy insertion to the seventh percentile at 6 months, 11th percentile at 12 months, 13th percentile at 18 months, and 18th percentile at 24 months. Fifty-seven percent of patients (28/49) showed an increase in weight-for-age z-scores at 6 months. That increased to 69.8% (30/43) at 12 months, 81.1% (30/37) at 18 months, and 77.8% (21/27) at 24 months (Fig. 1).

The increase in z-score over time is seen in Figure 2. The mean weight-for-age z-score significantly increased from –2.79 ± 1.21 at the time of radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy insertion to –2.33 ± 1.24 at 6 months (p = 0.05), –1.89 ± 1.16 at 12 months (p = 0.001), –1.65 ± 1.09 at 18 months (p = 0.0002), and –1.40 ± 1.16 at 24 months (p = 0.0004). Repeated measures regression analysis showed a significant increase in weight-for-age z-score over time (p < 0.0001), with an estimated mean increase of 0.055 weight-for-age z-score per month.

Subgroup analysis comparing 10 preterm infants versus term infants showed no statistically significant difference in the change in weight-for-age z-score between these two groups at 6 (p = 0.20), 12 (p = 0.14), 18 (p = 0.22), or 24 months (p = 0.23).


Discussion
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Poor oral intake affecting normal growth has been well documented in children with cardiac disease. The reasons are multifactorial, with the combination of increased energy requirements (chronic hypoxia, increased respiratory effort, and hypermetabolism) and decreased energy intake (vomiting, anorexia, and decreased enteral absorption) both contributing to this problem. Studies have also shown that infants with CHD may have a 21–40% increase in total energy expenditure when compared with healthy age-matched children [18, 19]. In our study, the majority of the patients had normal weight at birth but quickly deteriorated after birth and almost all of our patients showed markedly impaired growth at the time of tube insertion.

Oral feeding alone is often inadequate, and enteral feeding is a method for improving the nutritional status of cardiac patients. Studies have found that short-term gains in weight can be achieved with enteral feedings using nasogastric tubes [20, 21]. However, long-term nasogastric tube feeding has several disadvantages including nasal mucosal irritation, impairment of oral feeding, risk of tube dislodgement and aspiration, and cosmetic inconvenience. Compared with nasogastric tubes, gastrostomy tubes alleviate those issues and decrease the rate of aspiration pneumonia and mechanical malfunctions [22]. Furthermore, gastrostomy tube feeding has been proven to provide adequate nutrition in several groups of children. Sullivan et al. [23] showed improvement in the z-scores of children with cerebral palsy from –3 to –1.6 after 12 months of gastrostomy tube feeding and Rosenfeld et al. [24] showed an increase in weight percentiles from 2% to 19% in children with cystic fibrosis after a period of 30–48 months of gastrostomy tube feeding.

There are limited published studies regarding the dietary intake in patients with cardiac disease. Barton et al. [25] found that total daily energy expenditure was significantly increased in eight infants with CHD and that an estimate of 143 kcal/kg/d of energy intake would be required for normal growth in these infants as compared with the 100–120 kcal/kg/d recommended for healthy infants. Unger et al. [26] looked into the effect of high-calorie formula and nutritional counseling in 19 children with CHD who were underweight. After 6 months, there was a significant increase in weight, length, and triceps skinfold measurement in these children. Kelleher et al. [27] looked specifically at infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome and found that there was a high prevalence of malnutrition including a low weight-for-age z-score in these patients after a stage 1 Norwood procedure. These authors also found that infants who received more parenteral nutrition during initial hospitalization and used high-caloric enteral feeding on discharge were associated with improved nutritional status on readmission for a bidirectional Glenn procedure. Kelleher et al. concluded that the use of parenteral and enteral nutrition could help to improve the growth and nutrition of these children.

Very few studies have specifically addressed the use of radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy in children with cardiac disease, especially in terms of long-term nutritional outcomes. One study using percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) showed an increase in weight in a small group of patients (n = 15) at 4 weeks and at 6 months after intervention. Unfortunately, the results from this study were not significant because the sample size was too small [28]. Our results showed that radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy helped provide nutritional support with significant weight gain in children with cardiac disease. At 6 months after insertion, more than half of our patients increased their weight-for-age z-score, and that proportion continued to increase up to about the 80% mark at 24 months.

We have found that radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy can be safely and successfully performed on children with cardiac disease with a low rate of major complications. Only one procedure was unsuccessful in our series. The most common major complication was aspiration pneumonia that occurred in 12.1% of patients. Although aspiration pneumonia secondary to gastroesophageal reflux is considered a major cause of morbidity in patients with gastrostomies, the reflux may not be related to the use of gastric feeding [29]. Reflux itself is a common problem in this population, and the majority of our patients were on antireflux and motility medications even before radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy and continued on these medications. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to differentiate whether aspiration is due to the gastric feeding or the patient's own oropharyngeal secretions. Therefore, although considered a major complication to the patient, aspiration pneumonia may not be caused by the gastrostomy feeding.

A gastrojejunostomy tube rather than a gastrostomy tube may be considered at the initial insertion if there is a serious concern about reflux. Although an excellent alternative that avoids a surgical procedure such as fundoplication, gastrojejunostomy tube feeding is more expensive and requires a continuous infusion rather than a bolus feed, which is less convenient. Previous studies have also noted that gastrojejunostomy tubes have a higher risk of obstruction, tube migration, dislodgement, leakage, and intussusception. In our study, the rate of intussusception of 26.7% is within the rates reported, which range from 16% to 48% [30, 31].

The most frequent complication noted in our study was early site infection. This was seen at a higher rate compared with other studies of radiologic percutaneous gastrostomy in the general population [32]. It may reflect several issues in these children, including decreased immunity because of the severity of the patients' underlying condition or malnourishment. It may also reflect the increased frequency and length of hospital stays due to surgery or other complications, given that cultures from several patients' wounds were not typical for skin infections. However, in all cases, patients could be treated with a short course of antibiotics, and there was no progression to more serious consequences such as sepsis or endocarditis. Given the relatively common occurrence of this complication, the patient's family should be properly educated on the signs of a site infection so that the patient can be promptly treated.

There are some limitations to this study. Because it was a retrospective study, the accuracy of the measurements could not be controlled and the amount of measurements and length of follow-up varied among the patients. In this study, we were only able to measure one dimension of growth and nutrition using weight. Other dimensions such as length, head circumference, and skinfold thickness would have given a more complete picture of the patients' nutritional status. Furthermore, we were unable to account for differences in the actual amounts and types of nutritional formulas for each patient. Future studies should try to address these points.

From the results of our study, we have concluded that percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy or gastrojejunostomy is a safe method for providing long-term nutritional support to patients with cardiac disease. Both techniques are effective for improving nutrition and growth in this group of patients when used in a long-term setting.


References
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 

  1. Marelli AJ, Mackie AS, Ionescu-Ittu R, Rahme E, Pilote L. Congenital heart disease in the general population: changing prevalence and age distribution. Circulation 2007;115 : 163–172[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Ferencz C, Rubin JD, McCarter RJ, et al. Congenital heart disease: prevalence at livebirth. The Baltimore–Washington Infant Study. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121 : 31–36[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Cameron JW, Rosenthal A, Olson AD. Malnutrition in hospitalized children with congenital heart disease. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995; 149:1098 –1102[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Mitchell IM, Logan RW, Pollock JC, Jamieson MP. Nutritional status of children with congenital heart disease. Br Heart J1995; 73:277 –283[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Varan B, Tokel K, Yilmaz G. Malnutrition and growth failure in cyanotic and acyanotic congenital heart disease with and without pulmonary hypertension. Arch Dis Child 1999;81 : 49–52[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Venugopalan P, Akinbami FO, Al-Hinai KM, Agarwal AK. Malnutrition in children with congenital heart defects. Saudi Med J2001; 22:964 –967[Medline]
  7. Leitch CA. Growth, nutrition and energy expenditure in pediatric heart failure. Prog Pediatr Cardiol 2000;11 : 195–202[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Chait PG, Weinberg J, Connolly BL, et al. Retrograde percutaneous gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy in 505 children: a 4 1/2-year experience. Radiology 1996;201 : 691–695[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Albanese CT, Towbin RB, Ulman I, Lewis J, Smith SD. Percutaneous gastrojejunostomy versus Nissen fundoplication for enteral feeding of the neurologically impaired child with gastroesophageal reflux. J Pediatr 1993; 123:371 –375[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Aquino VM, Smyrl CB, Hagg R, McHard KM, Prestridge L, Sandler ES. Enteral nutritional support by gastrostomy tube in children with cancer. J Pediatr 1995;127 : 58–62[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Barron MA, Duncan DS, Green GJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of radiologically placed gastrostomy tubes in paediatric haematology/oncology patients. Med Pediatr Oncol 2000;34 : 177–182[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Steinkamp G, von der Hardt H. Improvement of nutritional status and lung function after long-term nocturnal gastrostomy feedings in cystic fibrosis. J Pediatr 1994;124 : 244–249[Medline]
  13. Wollman B, D'Agostino HB, Walus-Wigle JR, Easter DW, Beale A. Radiologic, endoscopic, and surgical gastrostomy: an institutional evaluation and meta-analysis of the literature. Radiology1995; 197:699 –704[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics Website. 2000 CDC growth charts: United States. www.cdc.gov/growthcharts. Accessed June 26, 2008
  15. Guo SS, Roche AF, Chumlea WC, Casey PH, Moore WM. Growth in weight, recumbent length, and head circumference for preterm low-birth-weight infants during the first three years of life using gestation-adjusted ages. Early Hum Dev 1997;47 : 305–325[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Wilson W, Taubert KA, Gewitz M, et al. Prevention of infective endocarditis. guidelines from the American Heart Association: a guideline from the American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group. Circulation 2007;116 :1736 –1754[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. King SJ, Chait PG, Daneman A, Pereira J. Retrograde percutaneous gastrostomy: a prospective study in 57 children. Pediatr Radiol 1993; 23:23 –25[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Ackerman IL, Karn CA, Denne SC, Ensing GJ, Leitch CA. Total but not resting energy expenditure is increased in infants with ventricular septal defects. Pediatrics 1998;102 :1172 –1177[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Leitch CA, Karn CA, Peppard RJ, et al. Increased energy expenditure in infants with cyanotic congenital heart disease. J Pediatr 1998; 133:755 –760[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Vanderhoof JA, Hofschire PJ, Baluff MA, et al. Continuous enteral feedings: an important adjunct to the management of complex congenital heart disease. Am J Dis Child 1982;136 : 825–827[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Bougle D, Iselin M, Kahyat A, Duhamel JF. Nutritional treatment of congenital heart disease. Arch Dis Child1986; 61:799 –801[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Magne N, Marcy PY, Foa C, et al. Comparison between nasogastric tube feeding and percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy in advanced head and neck cancer patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol2001; 258:89 –92[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Sullivan PB, Juszczak E, Bachlet AM, et al. Gastrostomy tube feeding in children with cerebral palsy: a prospective, longitudinal study. Dev Med Child Neurol 2005;47 : 77–85[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Rosenfeld M, Casey S, Pepe M, Ramsey BW. Nutritional effects of long-term gastrostomy feedings in children with cystic fibrosis. J Am Diet Assoc 1999; 99:191 –194[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Barton JS, Hindmarsh PC, Scrimgeour CM, Rennie MJ, Preece MA. Energy expenditure in congenital heart disease. Arch Dis Child 1994; 70:5 –9[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Unger R, DeKleermaeker M, Gidding SS, Christoffel KK. Calories count: improved weight gain with dietary intervention in congenital heart disease. Am J Dis Child 1992;146 :1078 –1084[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Kelleher DK, Laussen P, Teixeira-Pinto A, Duggan C. Growth and correlates of nutritional status among infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) after stage 1 Norwood procedure. Nutrition 2006;22 : 237–244[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Hofner G, Behrens R, Koch A, Singer H, Hofbeck M. Enteral nutritional support by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in children with congenital heart disease. Pediatr Cardiol2000; 21:341 –346[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Olson DL, Krubsack AJ, Stewart ET. Percutaneous enteral alimentation: gastrostomy versus gastrojejunostomy. Radiology 1993;187 : 105–108[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Friedman JN, Ahmed S, Connolly B, Chait P, Mahant S. Complications associated with image-guided gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy tubes in children. Pediatrics 2004;114 : 458–461[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Hughes UM, Connolly BL, Chait PG, Muraca S. Further report of small-bowel intussusceptions related to gastrojejunostomy tubes. Pediatr Radiol 2000;30 : 614–617[CrossRef][Medline]
  32. Ozmen MN, Akhan O. Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy. Eur J Radiol 2002;43 : 186–195[CrossRef][Medline]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sy, K.
Right arrow Articles by Amaral, J. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sy, K.
Right arrow Articles by Amaral, J. G.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS