Cited by 23Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyDysphagia Assessment and ManagementPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Basic geriatric assessment does not predict in-hospital mortality after PEG placement

Open access
Smoliner, Christine, Volkert, Dorothee, Wittrich, Anke, Sieber, Cornel C, Wirth, Rainer·2012·BMC Geriatrics

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is an established procedure for long-term nutrition. However, studies have underlined the importance of proper patient selection as mortality has been shown to be relatively high in acute illness and certain patient groups, amongst others geriatric patients. Objective of the study was to gather information about geriatric patients receiving PEG and to identify risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality after PEG placement. Methods: All patients from the GEMIDAS database undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in acute geriatric wards from 2006 to 2010 were included in a retrospective database analysis. Data on age, gender, main diagnosis leading to hospital admission, death in hospital, care level, and legal incapacitation were extracted from the main database of the Geriatric Minimum Data Set. Self-care capacity was assessed by the Barthel index, and cognitive status was rated with the Mini Mental State Examination or subjectively judged by the clinician. Descriptive statistics and group comparisons were chosen according to data distribution and scale of measurement, logistic regression analysis was performed to examine influence of various factors on hospital mortality. Results: A total of 1232 patients (60.4% women) with a median age of 82 years (range 60 to 99 years) were included. The mean Barthel index at admission was 9.5 ± 14.0 points. Assessment of cognitive status was available in about half of the patients (n = 664), with 20% being mildly impaired and almost 70% being moderately to severely impaired. Stroke was the most common main diagnosis (55.2%). In-hospital mortality was 12.8%. In a logistic regression analysis, old age (odds ratio (OR) 1.030, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.003-1.056), male sex (OR 1.741, 95% CI 1.216-2.493), and pneumonia (OR 2.641, 95% CI 1.457-4.792) or the diagnosis group ‘miscellaneous disease’ (OR 1.864, 95% CI 1.224-2.839) were identified as statistical risk factors for in–hospital death. Cognitive status did not have an influence on mortality (OR 0.447, CI 95% 0.248-1.650). Conclusion: In a nationwide geriatric database, no component of the basic geriatric assessment emerged as a significant risk factor for mortality after PEG placement, emphasizing individual decision-making.

Verifying this paper

8 of 9 steps done · this page updates itself — you can leave and come back

  1. Registry recordVerified
  2. Full textRead the full text
  3. Reference list28 references found
  4. Reference checkChecking each cited work — 27 of 28
  5. StatisticsNeeds the full text
  6. ClaimsNeeds the full text
  7. Cited sourcesNeeds claims to check
  8. Self-checkNeeds the full text
  9. VerificationFindings verified

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2318-12-52

Cites

27 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smoliner, C., Volkert, D., Wittrich, A., Sieber, C. C., & Wirth, R.
Affiliations
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Wirth, Rainer
Venue
BMC Geriatrics
Published
2012-09-06
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
52-52
ISSN
1471-2318 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082973624
Cited by
23
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Geriatrics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OPUS FAU (Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg (KOBV), on behalf of the Universitätsbibliothek Erlangen-Nürnberg) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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, in-hospital mortality, elderly patients, mortality risk factors, pneumonia, cognitive impairment, Barthel Index, self-care ability, acute geriatric ward, long-term enteral nutrition, patient selection, legal incapacitation, stroke, sex differences in mortality
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Gastroscopy, Gastrostomy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Retrospective Studies, Geriatric Assessment, Hospital Mortality

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