Abstract
Objective: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is an effective and safe way of delivering enteral nutrition. Neurological diseases and malignancies are the leading indications. This study aimed to determine the mortality rates after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement by comparing age groups.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placements between 2019 and 2022 in a single center. The date of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placements and deaths were recorded. Patients were categorized according to age as follows: <65 years, 65-74 years, 75-84 years, and 85 years and over.
Results: A total of 476 patients were included. The median age was 79.0 (range 18-97), with 59.9% being female. The leading indications were neurological diseases (91.0%), and malignancies (5.0%). Of the 476 patients, 14.7% were <65 years, 20.6% were between 65 and 74 years, 37.4% were between 75 and 84 years, and 27.3% were 85 years and over. About 13.2% of patients died within 2 weeks and 67.2% of patients died within 12 months. About 8.6% of patients aged <65 years and 17.7% of patients aged 85 years and over died within 2 weeks. On the other hand, 60.0% of patients aged <65 years and 67.2% of patients aged 85 years and over died within 12 months. Approximately half of the patients (48.3%) died within 3 months.
Conclusion: In this study, almost half of the patients died within 3 months. The mortality rate of patients aged 85 years was higher in the short term. Current data for all institutions should be defined, and future strategies should be targeted. High-quality, controllable nutrition support teams are essential.
Keywords: Mortality, nutrition support team, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
Copyright and license
Copyright © 2023 The author(s). This is an open-access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.