(1) Background: The use of virtual reality (VR) in improving patient comfort related to medical procedures in oncology patients raised the question of whether similar benefits could be obtained by patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). (2) Methods: In this prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center clinical trial, a total of 90 patients with IBD treated with vedolizumab were enrolled and randomized in a 1:1 allocation to either the VR immersion group or the routine-treated group. The primary outcome was to evaluate whether VR could decrease stress and anxiety related to a medical procedure. The secondary outcome was to assess the safety of the VR. (3) Results: A statistically significant improvement in well-being and psychological comfort (p = 0.046), feeling of relaxation (p = 0.046), sense of influence on the treatment process (p < 0.001), improved perception of the way the drug works (p < 0.001), improved positive attitude while waiting for the next administration of the drug (p = 0.026), and increased motivation for treatment (p = 0.026) was noticed in the intervention group. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of complications in the intervention and control groups. (4) Conclusions: The use of VR had a positive effect on the reduction of stress associated with vedolizumab treatment and could improve compliance.

DOI: 10.20452/pamw.16287, Published online: July 04, 2022, Authors: Piotr Kucha, Edyta Zagórowicz, Dorota Walkiewicz, Jakub Perwieniec, Michał Maluchnik, Paulina Wieszczy, Jarosław Reguła

Background The peroral "pull" technique and the direct "push" procedure are the two main methods for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement. Although pull-PEG is generally recommended as the first-line modality, many oncological patients require a push-PEG approach to prevent tumor seeding or overcome tumor-related obstruction.Objective We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of both PEG procedures in cancer patients.Methods We retrospectively analyzed all consecutive PEG procedures within a tertiary oncological center. Patients were followed up with the hospital databases and National Cancer Registry to assess the technical success rate for PEG placement, the rate of minor and major adverse events (AEs), and 30-day mortality rates. We compared those outcomes between the two PEG techniques. Finally, risk factors for PEG-related adverse events were analyzed using a multivariable Cox proportional-hazard regression model adjusted for patients' sex, age, performance status (ECOG), Body Mass Index (BMI), diabetes, chemoradiotherapy (CRT) status (pre-/current-/post-treatment), and type of PEG.Results We included 1055 PEG procedures (58.7% push-PEG/41.4% pull-PEG) performed in 994 patients between 2014 and 2021 (mean age 62.0 [+/- 10.7] yrs.; 70.2% males; indication: head-and-neck cancer 75.9%/other cancer 24.1%). The overall technical success for PEG placement was 96.5%. Although the "push" technique had a higher rate of all AEs (21.4% vs. 7.1%, Hazard Ratio [HR] = 2.9; 95% CI = 1.9-4.3, p < 0.001), most of these constituted minor AEs (71.9%), such as tube dislodgement. The methods had no significant difference regarding major AEs and 30-day mortality rates. Previous CRT was associated with an increased risk of major AEs (hazard ratio = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.0-7.2, p = 0.042).Conclusion The risk of major AEs was comparable between the push- and pull-PEG techniques in cancer patients. Due to frequent tube dislodgement in push-PEG, the pull technique may be more suitable for long-term feeding. Previous CRT increases the risk of major AEs, favoring early ("prophylactic") PEG placement when such treatment is expected.