Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; evidence of different prognosis in various patient subgroups
Abstract
Background As there are no prospective randomised trials about percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) insertion, the medical staff and caregivers encounter great difficulty in deciding when and if to perform this procedure. Objective To explore which variables are associated with increased mortality after PEG insertion. Design Prospective observational study. Setting Gastroenterological unit of a 500-bed community hospital. Subjects All patients over the age of 50 years referred for PEG insertion between January 1992 and December 2002. Methods Patients were studied for their indication for PEG insertion as well as their main medical problems, and demographic details and medical records were reviewed yearly until mortality. Results 674 patients were enrolled (mean age 80.1 years, 42% men). The median survival was worst in diabetic patients (128 days, P Conclusions The outcome after PEG insertion is variable, with survival of over a year in many of the patients. These data are important for the medical staff, the patients and their caregivers when deciding about PEG placement.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Several risk factors for early mortality after PEG insertion were identified, e.g. dementia, urinary tract infection, previous aspiration and diabetes.
“Several risk factors for early mortality after PEG insertion were identified, e.g.dementia, urinary tract infection, previous aspiration and diabetes (132-136, 149, 156-159).”
From ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics (2022) · cites this paper as [134]
Survival after PEG insertion very much depends on the indication and selection of patients.
“However, survival very much depends on the indication and selection of patients (132-137).”
From ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics (2022) · cites this paper as [134]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics
Volkert, D., Beck, A. M., Cederholm, T., Cruz-Jentoft, A., Hooper, L., Kiesswetter, E., Maggio, M., Raynaud-Simon, A., Sieber, C., Sobotka, L., et al. (2022) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2022.01.024 · Cited by 516 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rimon, E., Kagansky, N., & Levy, S.
- Affiliations
- Kaplan Medical Center (IL)
- ORCID
- Kagansky, Nadya
- Venue
- Age and Ageing
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-05-18
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 353-357
- ISSN
- 0002-0729 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2834
- OpenAlex
- W2170361232
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 5.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Age and Ageing (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 › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
- Keywords
- percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, mortality, survival, prognostic factors, diabetes mellitus, dementia, elderly patients, feeding tube placement, decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Deglutition Disorders, Dementia, Enteral Nutrition, Female, Gastroscopy, Gastrostomy, Humans, Life Expectancy, Male, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Survival Analysis
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
