Safety of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Placement in Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to ventilator-dependent chronic respiratory failure and a need for tube feeding. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement provides more sustainable longer-term enteral access with fewer side effects compared to the long-term nasogastric tube placement. Bleeding is a recognized complication of PEG placement, and many COVID-19 patients are on antiplatelets/anticoagulants, yet minimal data exist on the safety of PEG tube placement in this context. Methods: A retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent PEG placement between January 2020 and January 2021 at a single institution. Success was defined as PEG placement and use to provide enteral nutrition with no complications requiring removal within 4 weeks. Results: Thirty-six patients with and 104 age- and sex-matched patients without COVID-19 infection were included. More COVID-19 patients were obese, on anticoagulants, had low serum albumin levels and had a tracheostomy in place. Of those patients, 8.3% with COVID-19 developed PEG-related complications compared to 16.3% without (P = 0.28). PEG success rates in patients with and without COVID-19 were similar at 97.2% and 92.3%, respectively (P = 0.44). Conclusion: PEG tube placement is comparatively safe in COVID-19 patients who need long-term enteral access.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".