Fluoroscopic-Guided vs. Multislice Computed Tomography (CT) Biopsy Mode-Guided Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy (PRG)—Comparison of Interventional Parameters and Billing.

Background: This study investigated and compared the efficacy, safety, radiation exposure, and financial compensation of two modalities for percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG): multislice computed tomography biopsy mode (MS-CT BM)-guided and fluoroscopy-guided (FPRG). The aim was to provide insights into optimizing radiologically assisted gastrostomy procedures. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of PRG procedures performed at a single center from January 2018 to January 2024. The procedures were divided into two groups based on the imaging modality used. We compared patient demographics, intervention parameters, complication rates, and procedural times. Financial compensation was evaluated based on the tariff structure for outpatient medical services in Switzerland (TARMED). Statistical differences were determined using Fisher's exact test and the Mann–Whitney U test. Results: The study cohort included 133 patients: 55 with MS-CT BM-PRG and 78 with FPRG. The cohort comprised 35 women and 98 men, with a mean age of 64.59 years (±11.91). Significant differences were observed between the modalities in effective dose (MS-CT BM-PRG: 10.95 mSv ± 11.43 vs. FPRG: 0.169 mSv ± 0.21, p < 0.001) and procedural times (MS-CT BM-PRG: 41.15 min ± 16.14 vs. FPRG: 28.71 min ± 16.03, p < 0.001). Major complications were significantly more frequent with FPRG (10% vs. 0% in MS-CT BM-PRG, p = 0.039, φ = 0.214). A higher single-digit number of MS-CT BM-guided PRG was required initially to reduce procedure duration by 10 min. Financial comparison revealed that only 4% of MS-CT BM-guided PRGs achieved reimbursement equivalent to the most frequent comparable examination, according to TARMED. Conclusions: Based on our experience from a retrospective, single-center study, the execution of a PRG using MS-CT BM, as opposed to FPRG, is currently justified in challenging cases despite a lower incidence of major complications. However, further well-designed prospective multicenter studies are needed to determine the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of these two modalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]