Survival analysis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding: a worse outcome in patients with dementia
Abstract
Objective Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding has been validated in specific clinical situations such as acute stroke with dysphagia and oropharyngeal malignancy. The perception that gastrostomy insertion is safe and technically simple has led to an increase in the demands for PEG insertion, encompassing clinical applications such as in patients with dementia, in whom its role has not been justified. The purpose of this study was to compare the mortality of patients with dementia who were fed by PEG to that of other subgroups of patients requiring gastrostomy feeding. Methods The study focused on a cohort of 361 consecutive patients requiring PEG feeding between August 1992 and July 1997 from two District General Hospitals (Rotherham District General Hospital and Doncaster Royal Infirmary) in South Yorkshire. A retrospective cohort survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier survival method and Cox proportional hazards analysis. Results In all patients requiring gastrostomy feeding there is a high initial mortality of 28% at 30 days. However, patients with dementia have a worse prognosis compared to other subgroups, with 54% having died at 1 month and 90% at 1 yr (log rank test p Conclusions This is the first demonstration in the United Kingdom that the mortality of patients with dementia who are fed by gastrostomy is considerable. Consequently, we may wish to advise against gastrostomy feeding in selected patients within this clinical setting.
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 [132]
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 [132]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 17 · Cited by 300
- Authors
- Sanders, D. S., Carter, M. J., D'Silva, J., James, G., Bolton, R. P., & Bardhan, K. D.
- Affiliations
- Doncaster Royal Infirmary (GB)
- Royal Hallamshire Hospital (GB)
- Rotherham General Hospital (GB)
- Venue
- The American Journal of Gastroenterology
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1472-1475
- ISSN
- 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-0241
- OpenAlex
- W1994431221
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 27
- FWCI
- 12.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The American Journal of Gastroenterology (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, dementia, mortality, prognosis, dysphagia, acute stroke
- MeSH terms
- Contraindications, Aged, Dementia, Endoscopy, Enteral Nutrition, Gastrostomy, United Kingdom, Humans, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Cohort Studies, Proportional Hazards Models, 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