Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012 Oct;60(10):1918-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04148.x. Epub 2012 Sep 24.

Does feeding tube insertion and its timing improve survival?

Author information

1
Center for Gerontology and Health Care Research, Warren Alpert School of Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA. Joan_Teno@brown.edu

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To examine survival with and without a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding tube using rigorous methods to account for selection bias and to examine whether the timing of feeding tube insertion affected survival.

DESIGN:

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING:

All U.S. nursing homes (NHs).

PARTICIPANTS:

Thirty-six thousand four hundred ninety-two NH residents with advanced cognitive impairment from dementia and new problems eating studied between 1999 and 2007.

MEASUREMENTS:

Survival after development of the need for eating assistance and feeding tube insertion.

RESULTS:

Of the 36,492 NH residents (88.4% white, mean age 84.9, 87.4% with one feeding tube risk factor), 1,957 (5.4%) had a feeding tube inserted within 1 year of developing eating problems. After multivariate analysis correcting for selection bias with propensity score weights, no difference was found in survival between the two groups (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.94-1.13). In residents who were tube-fed, the timing of PEG tube insertion relative to the onset of eating problems was not associated with survival after feeding tube insertion (AHR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.86-1.20, persons with a PEG tube inserted within 1 month of developing an eating problem versus later (4 months) insertion).

CONCLUSION:

Neither insertion of PEG tubes nor timing of insertion affect survival.

PMID:
23002947
PMCID:
PMC3470758
DOI:
10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04148.x
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center