Survival after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement in older persons
Abstract
Background The prolongation of life is an important consideration in the decision to initiate long-term tube feeding. This report critically synthesizes the evidence regarding the impact of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement on survival in older persons. Methods A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE from January 1980 until January 1999. Articles reporting survival data in older persons (mean or median age >65 years) after PEG tube placement were identified. The number and age of subjects, length of follow-up, setting, and survival data were extracted from all eligible studies. Mortality data at 1, 2, 6, and 12 months after PEG placement were quantitatively synthesized. Clinical characteristics associated with decreased survival among subjects with PEG tubes were identified. Results Five cohort studies compared survival in patients with and without feeding tubes in nursing homes, but none demonstrated a survival benefit. Another cohort study reported increased survival for tube-fed patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The pooled proportion of all subjects surviving after PEG placement was as follows: 1 month = 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.88), 2 months = 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65-0.74), 6 months = 0.56 (95% CI, 0.20-0.92), and 12 months = 0.38 (95% CI, 0.26-0.49). Advanced age and malignancy were the factors most often reported to be associated with poorer survival among subjects with PEG tubes. Conclusions The impact of PEG place…
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?
In geriatric patients, survival after insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is poor.
“In general, the survival after insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in geriatric patients is poor.”
From ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics (2022) · cites this paper as [131]
A meta-analysis demonstrated survival of 81% after one month, 56% after six months and 38% after one year after PEG insertion in geriatric patients.
“A J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f meta-analysis demonstrated the survival of 81% after one month, 56% after six months and 38% after one year (131).”
From ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics (2022) · cites this paper as [131]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 136
- Authors
- Mitchell, S. L., & Tetroe, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Mitchell, S. L.
- Venue
- The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-12-01
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- M735-M739
- ISSN
- 1079-5006 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-535X
- OpenAlex
- W2114005429
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 0.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journals of Gerontology Series A (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, long-term tube feeding, survival, older adults, mortality, nursing homes, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, old age, cancer, prognosis
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aging, Enteral Nutrition, Gastrostomy, Humans, Polyethylene Glycols, Cohort Studies, Survival Analysis, Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal
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