Comparison of long-term outcomes between enteral nutrition via gastrostomy and total parenteral nutrition in older persons with dysphagia: A propensity-matched cohort study.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
02
05
2019
accepted:
11
09
2019
entrez:
3
10
2019
pubmed:
3
10
2019
medline:
11
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The long-term outcomes of artificial nutrition in older people with dysphagia remain uncertain. Enteral nutrition via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is one of the major methods of artificial nutrition. Enteral feeding is indicated for patients with a functional gastrointestinal tract. However, total parenteral nutrition (TPN) is often inappropriately chosen for artificial nutrition in Japan, even in patients with a functional gastrointestinal tract, as PEG has recently been viewed as an unnecessary life-prolonging treatment in Japan. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes between PEG and TPN. This single-center retrospective cohort study investigated long-term outcomes in older patients with dysphagia who received PEG or TPN between January 2014 and January 2017. The primary outcome was survival time. Secondary outcomes were oral intake recovery, discharge to home, and the incidence of severe pneumonia and sepsis. We performed 1-to-1 propensity score matching using a 0.05 caliper. The Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox regression analysis were used to compare the survival time between groups. We identified 253 patients who received PEG (n = 180) or TPN (n = 73). Older patients, those with lower nutritional states, and severe dementia were more likely to receive TPN. Propensity score matching created 55 pairs. Survival time was significantly longer in the PEG group (median, 317 vs 195 days; P = 0.017). The hazard ratio for PEG relative to TPN was 0.60 (95% confidence interval: 0.39-0.92; P = 0.019). There were no significant differences between the groups in oral intake recovery and discharge to home. The incidence of severe pneumonia was significantly higher in the PEG group (50.9% vs 25.5%, P = 0.010), whereas sepsis was significantly higher in the TPN group (10.9% vs 30.9%, P = 0.018). PEG was associated with a significantly longer survival time, a higher incidence of severe pneumonia, and a lower incidence of sepsis compared with TPN.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The long-term outcomes of artificial nutrition in older people with dysphagia remain uncertain. Enteral nutrition via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is one of the major methods of artificial nutrition. Enteral feeding is indicated for patients with a functional gastrointestinal tract. However, total parenteral nutrition (TPN) is often inappropriately chosen for artificial nutrition in Japan, even in patients with a functional gastrointestinal tract, as PEG has recently been viewed as an unnecessary life-prolonging treatment in Japan. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes between PEG and TPN.
METHODS
This single-center retrospective cohort study investigated long-term outcomes in older patients with dysphagia who received PEG or TPN between January 2014 and January 2017. The primary outcome was survival time. Secondary outcomes were oral intake recovery, discharge to home, and the incidence of severe pneumonia and sepsis. We performed 1-to-1 propensity score matching using a 0.05 caliper. The Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox regression analysis were used to compare the survival time between groups.
RESULTS
We identified 253 patients who received PEG (n = 180) or TPN (n = 73). Older patients, those with lower nutritional states, and severe dementia were more likely to receive TPN. Propensity score matching created 55 pairs. Survival time was significantly longer in the PEG group (median, 317 vs 195 days; P = 0.017). The hazard ratio for PEG relative to TPN was 0.60 (95% confidence interval: 0.39-0.92; P = 0.019). There were no significant differences between the groups in oral intake recovery and discharge to home. The incidence of severe pneumonia was significantly higher in the PEG group (50.9% vs 25.5%, P = 0.010), whereas sepsis was significantly higher in the TPN group (10.9% vs 30.9%, P = 0.018).
CONCLUSIONS
PEG was associated with a significantly longer survival time, a higher incidence of severe pneumonia, and a lower incidence of sepsis compared with TPN.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31577813
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217120
pii: PONE-D-19-12499
pmc: PMC6774498
doi:
Banques de données
Dryad
['10.5061/dryad.gg407h1']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0217120Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1979 Nov-Dec;3(6):444-51
pubmed: 119063
Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Oct;74(4):534-42
pubmed: 11566654
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 May;59(5):437-47
pubmed: 16632131
Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2016 Aug;14:19-23
pubmed: 28531394
Clin Nutr. 2019 Aug;38(4):1871-1876
pubmed: 30061054
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2018 Jan;18(1):177-182
pubmed: 28782162
Eur J Intern Med. 2016 Jun;31:3-10
pubmed: 27039014
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2014 Oct;14(4):735-9
pubmed: 25489649
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Aug;62(8):1590-3
pubmed: 25039796
Am J Med. 2014 Apr;127(4):319-28
pubmed: 24440542
Biosci Trends. 2018 Mar 18;12(1):7-11
pubmed: 29479017
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 18;7(9):e015649
pubmed: 28928176
Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Mar;111(3):315-34; quiz 335
pubmed: 26952578
Am J Clin Nutr. 2015 Nov;102(5):1222-8
pubmed: 26447149
Psychol Methods. 2016 Sep;21(3):427-45
pubmed: 26962757
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2019 Jan;43(1):15-31
pubmed: 30339287
JAMA. 2015 Nov 10;314(18):1966-7
pubmed: 26547468
Dig Endosc. 2012 Nov;24(6):426-31
pubmed: 23078434
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018 Jul;66(7):1388-1391
pubmed: 29799111
Psychogeriatrics. 2017 Nov;17(6):453-459
pubmed: 29178502
J Pediatr Surg. 1980 Dec;15(6):872-5
pubmed: 6780678
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 11;8(12):e81045
pubmed: 24349029
World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Oct 28;16(40):5084-91
pubmed: 20976846
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2017 Mar;41(3):324-377
pubmed: 28333597
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013 Mar;48(3):452-8
pubmed: 23208313
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2017 May;26(5):1013-1019
pubmed: 28108097
Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Jan 15;179(2):226-35
pubmed: 24114655
Am J Gastroenterol. 2000 Jun;95(6):1472-5
pubmed: 10894581
Clin Nutr. 2016 Jun;35(3):545-56
pubmed: 26923519
Nutrition. 2000 Jul-Aug;16(7-8):606-11
pubmed: 10906570
Nutrition. 2019 Feb;58:89-93
pubmed: 30391696
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016 Dec;25(12):2801-2808
pubmed: 27542695
JAMA. 1999 Oct 13;282(14):1365-70
pubmed: 10527184
Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra. 2016 Oct 7;6(3):477-485
pubmed: 27843445
Stat Med. 1991 Apr;10(4):585-98
pubmed: 2057657
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 May 22;(5):CD008096
pubmed: 25997528
BMJ. 2011 Mar 18;342:d1447
pubmed: 21421667
Clin Nutr. 2015 Dec;34(6):1052-73
pubmed: 26522922
Gastrointest Endosc. 1981 Feb;27(1):9-11
pubmed: 6783471
Am J Infect Control. 2016 Dec 1;44(12):1462-1468
pubmed: 27908433
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2015 May;39(4):456-64
pubmed: 24525103
Nutr Clin Pract. 2019 Apr;34(2):280-289
pubmed: 30251336