| ORIGINAL ARTICLE
|Year : 2005 | Volume
| Issue : 1 | Page : 23-29
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: 30-day mortality trends and risk factors
Simon EJ Janes, C SG Price, S Khan
Department of surgery, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, England WV1 0QP, United Kingdom
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: 30-day Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) mortality of 8% (1992). Recent concerns suggest that mortality may have increased, prompting a comparison of current practice with that reported earlier.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data regarding PEG insertion with relation to case mix, complications, 30-day mortality and associated risk factors, in 2002, in a British University Hospital was compared with that in 1992. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors independently predictive of 30-day mortality.
RESULTS: In 2002, 112 patients (70% males, mean age 67.5 years; 1992: 63.6 years) underwent PEG. The 30-day mortality increased significantly from 8% (1992) to 22% (2002), P= 0.03. During this time, PEG insertion rate increased ten-fold, however, procedure-related mortality decreased from 2% to nil. In terms of percentage, the indications for PEG in 1992 and 2002 respectively were: cerebrovascular disease (33/25), head and neck tumours (16/24), motor neuron disease (27/11, P= 0.01). The proportion of PEGs for non-evidence-based indications increased from 16% in 1992 to 31% in 2002, P= 0.048. The number of PEGs placed radiologically increased (0/17, P= 0.02). Radiological patients received less antibiotic prophylaxis (P< 0.001) and had more PEG site infections than standard placement, P= 0.04. Multivariate analysis identified nil by mouth 7 days or 11.4 (CI 3.2-41.7), albumin 30 g/L or 12 (2.2-66.7) and >1 cardiac factor or 5.1 (1.02-25.6) as independent predictors of 30-day mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: The ten-fold rise in the PEG insertion rate has been accompanied by a three-fold rise in 30-day mortality. This may reflect a lowered threshold of PEG insertion. The risk factors identified may help decision-making in cases where the risk-benefit relationship is not clear-cut.
Simon EJ Janes
Department of surgery, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, England WV1 0QP
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*