Survival After Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Placement in Older Persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prolongation of life is an important consideration in the decision to initiate long-term tube feeding. This report critically synthesizes the evidence regarding the impact of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement on survival in older persons. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE from January 1980 until January 1999. Articles reporting survival data in older persons (mean or median age >65 years) after PEG tube placement were identified. The number and age of subjects, length of follow-up, setting, and survival data were extracted from all eligible studies. Mortality data at 1, 2, 6, and 12 months after PEG placement were quantitatively synthesized. Clinical characteristics associated with decreased survival among subjects with PEG tubes were identified. RESULTS: Five cohort studies compared survival in patients with and without feeding tubes in nursing homes, but none demonstrated a survival benefit. Another cohort study reported increased survival for tube-fed patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The pooled proportion of all subjects surviving after PEG placement was as follows: 1 month = 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.88), 2 months = 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65-0.74), 6 months = 0.56 (95% CI, 0.20-0.92), and 12 months = 0.38 (95% CI, 0.26-0.49). Advanced age and malignancy were the factors most often reported to be associated with poorer survival among subjects with PEG tubes. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of PEG placement on survival is not known because the level of evidence is limited. PEG tubes may prolong life in selected populations. However, the majority of older patients selected for PEG placement will not survive 1 year after the procedure. Certain factors may identify those patients more likely to derive a survival benefit from long-term tube feeding. This information may offer some guidance to decision makers for whom prolongation of life is an important factor in the tube-feeding decision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".