Cited by 194Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes

Long-term follow-up of consequences of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes in nursing home patients

Kaw, Madhukar, Sekas, Gail·1994·Digestive Diseases and Sciences

Abstract

PEG (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy) tubes are frequently placed in nursing home patients. The aim of this study was to assess retrospectively the long-term changes in functional and nutritional statuses, tube-related complications, and factors influencing survival in 46 nursing home residents, mean age 73.6 years (range 19-96). Functional status was evaluated by a standard rehabilitation medicine scale. Nutritional status was evaluated by serum albumin and cholesterol concentrations and by weight. PEG-related complications requiring hospitalization or emergency room or clinic evaluations were noted. Additionally, changes in resuscitation status were noted. The predominant indication for PEG placement was dementia (52%). At PEG placement, 48% of patients had total functional impairment. Regardless of the severity of impairment, no patient's functional status improved after PEG. Nutritional status did not improve significantly. Mortality approached 50% and 60% at 12 and 18 months, respectively, and was significantly related to age, resuscitation status, and serum albumin concentration. All patients under 40 years of age at PEG survived, in contrast to 41.3% of patients over 40 years of age (P or = 3.5 g/dl at PEG or thereafter was associated with improved survival (P < 0.001) as compared to albumin < 3.5 g/dl. PEG-related complications occurred in 34.7% of patients, and the first occurred four months after PEG. We conclude that realistic expectations of what PEG can accom…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02087416

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kaw, M., & Sekas, G.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
Digestive Diseases and Sciences
Published
1994-04
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
738-743
ISSN
  • 0163-2116 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2568
OpenAlex
W2088575534
Cited by
194
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Digestive Diseases and Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Keywords
percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, nursing home residents, functional status, nutritional status, serum albumin, survival, dementia, PEG complications, resuscitation status, advance directives, long-term outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cerebrovascular Disorders, Dementia, Enteral Nutrition, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Intubation, Gastrointestinal, Nursing Homes, Nutritional Status, Retrospective Studies, Serum Albumin, Time Factors, Incidence, Survival Analysis, Resuscitation Orders, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review