• T Dwolatzky, S Berezovski, R Friedmann, J Paz, A M Clarfield, J Stessman, R Hamburger, E Jaul, Y Friedlander, A Rosin, and M Sonnenblick.
• Department of Geriatric Medicine, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jesuralem, Israel.
• Clin Nutr. 2001 Dec 1;20(6):535-40.

ObjectiveTo compare the indications for and the outcome of long-term enteral feeding by nasogastric tube (NGT) with that of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube.DesignA prospective, multicenter cohort study.SettingAcute geriatric units and long-term care (LTC) hospitals in Jerusalem, Israel.Participants122 chronic patients aged 65 years and older for whom long-term enteral feeding was indicated as determined by the treating physician. Patients with acute medical conditions at the time of tube placement were excluded.MeasurementsWe examined the indications for enteral feeding, nutritional status, outcome and complications in all subjects. Subjects were followed for a minimum period of six months.ResultsAlthough the PEG patients were older and had a higher incidence of dementia, there was an improved survival in those patients with PEG as compared to NGT (hazard ratio (HR)=0.41; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.76; P=0.01). Also, the patients with PEG had a lower rate of aspiration (HR=0.48; 95% CI 0.26-0.89) and self-extubation (HR=0.17; 95% CI 0.05-0.58) than those with NGT. Apart from a significant improvement in the serum albumin level at the 4-week follow-up assessment in the patients with PEG compared to those with NGT (adjusted mean 3.35 compared to 3.08; F=4.982), nutritional status was otherwise similar in both groups.ConclusionIn long-term enteral feeding, in a selected group of non-acute patients, the use of PEG was associated with improved survival, was better tolerated by the patient and was associated with a lower incidence of aspiration. A randomized controlled study is needed to determine whether PEG is truly superior to NGT.Copyright 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd.

19 keywords...

hide…