This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0148607108327156v1 33/4/375    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Longcroft-Wheaton, G. Articles by Farrant, M. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Longcroft-Wheaton, G. Articles by Farrant, M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Understanding Why Patients Die After Gastrostomy Tube Insertion: A Retrospective Analysis of Mortality

From the ¹ Department of Gastroenterology, St. Richards Hospital Chichester, Chichester, UK;² Department of Gastroenterology, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK; ³ Research Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, University of Bath, Bath, UK;⁴ Department of Gastroenterology, Royal United Hospital Bath, Bath, UK; and ⁵ Research and Development Support Unit, Wolfston Unit, University of Bath, Bath, UK.

Address correspondence to: G. Longcroft-Wheaton, MB, BS, MRCP, Brookside, Furzeley Corner, Denmead, Hampshire P07 6TS, UK; e-mail: gaius{at}gaius.wanadoo.co.uk.

Objectives: To understand the causes of mortality of inpatients receiving a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube compared with a survival curve predicted from a model proposed by Levine et al (2007). Design: A retrospective study of patients receiving a PEG over an 18-month period. Setting: Royal United Hospital Bath, a district general hospital in the southwest of England. Patients: Fifty-five cases, with 44 found eligible for inclusion. Interventions: A Levine score was calculated for this cohort. A survival curve after PEG was produced and compared with the Kaplan-Meier curve predicted by the Levine model. Main Outcome Measures: Mortality over a period of 1 year. Results: The mortality at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months was 16%, 20%, 25%, and 28%, respectively. This matched the predicted death rate from the Levine model closely (Pearson's rank correlation coefficient = 0.96). Conclusions: The authors found that the mortality of patients receiving a PEG followed that predicted for a similar cohort of patients without PEGs in the Levine model. This suggests that the deaths observed were due to underlying comorbidities, can provide a baseline for mortality targets for PEG services, and is useful patient information regarding the risks and benefits of the procedure. The findings demonstrate that PEG does no harm and supports the accepted opinion that nutrition support is associated with a better outcome. Furthermore, they show that most deaths occur within the first month of placement and would support arguments for delaying placement until outcome from the underlying condition is more predictable.

Key Words: PEG • gastrostomy tube • enteral feeding • nutrition support

This version was published on July 1, 2009

Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 33, No. 4, 375-379 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0148607108327156


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?