Outcomes of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Among Older Adults in a Community Setting
Abstract
Objective Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has become the preferred method to provide enteral tube feeding to older adults who have difficulty eating, but the impact of PEG on patient outcomes is poorly understood. The objective of this study was to describe changes in nutrition, functional status, and health-related quality of life among older adults receiving PEG. Design A prospective cohort study. Setting A small community of approximately 60,000 residents served by two hospital systems. Participants One hundred fifty patients aged 60 and older receiving PEG from one of the four gastroenterologists practicing in the targeted community. Measurements Patients were assessed at baseline and every 2 months for 1 year to obtain clinical characteristics, process of care data, physical and cognitive function, subjective health status, nutritional status, complications, and mortality. Results Over a 14-month period, 150 patients received PEG tubes in the targeted community; the mean age was 78.9. The most frequent indications for the PEG were stroke (40.7%), neurodegenerative disorders (34.7%), and cancer (13.3%). All measures of functional status, cognitive status, severity of illness, comorbidity, and quality of life demonstrated profound and life-threatening impairment; 30-day mortality was 22% and 1-year mortality was 50%. Among patients surviving 60 days or more, at least 70% had no significant improvement in functional, nutritional, or subjective health status. Serio…
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?
The effect of enteral nutrition on functionality, mortality, and quality of life remains unclear.
“Nevertheless, the effect on functionality, mortality, and quality of life remains unclear (144-155).”
From ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics (2022) · cites this paper as [144]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 45 · Cited by 225
- Authors
- Callahan, C. M., Haag, K. M., Weinberger, M., Tierney, W. M., Buchanan, N. N., Stump, T. E., & Nisi, R.
- Affiliations
- Regenstrief Institute (US)
- Indiana University School of Medicine (US)
- Central Indiana Gastroenterology Group (US)
- Corresponding author
- Callahan, Christopher M.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-09
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1048-1054
- ISSN
- 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-5415
- OpenAlex
- W1978841861
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 8.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Keywords
- percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, enteral nutrition, older adults, nutritional status, functional status, health-related quality of life, mortality, stroke, neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, community-based care
- MeSH terms
- Activities of Daily Living, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude to Health, Enteral Nutrition, Female, Gastroscopy, Gastrostomy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nutritional Status, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Geriatric Assessment, Survival Analysis, 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
