Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy does not prolong survival in @entity1 with XXXX .

@entity1 @entity303 @entity970 @entity548
BACKGROUND: Artificial feeding by a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy ( @entity970 ) tube in @entity1 with @entity303 has increased since the introduction of the endoscopic method of tube placement. Few studies have documented survival benefit from this intervention. This report reviews our experience with @entity970 tube placement for feeding @entity1 with @entity303 . METHODS: All consultations for @entity970 tube placement were evaluated by a certified nutrition support nurse (L.M.M.) in consultation with a member of the gastroenterology physician staff (T.O.L.) for 24 months. Evaluation included the attainment of a brief medical history, a physical examination, and a review of comorbid conditions, laboratory variables for nutrition status, and @entity548 risk. Interviews with @entity1 or surrogates were conducted, including an explanation of the risks and benefits of @entity970 tube placement. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve was used to compare the median survival between @entity1 with @entity303 who received a @entity970 tube and @entity1 with @entity303 in whom @entity970 tube placement was refused. RESULTS: We received 41 consultations for @entity970 tube placement in @entity1 with @entity303 . Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy was performed in 23 @entity1 ; 18 @entity1 met the medical criteria for @entity970 tube placement, but surrogates refused placement. The median survival for the 23 @entity1 who underwent @entity970 was 59 days; the median survival for the 18 @entity1 who did not undergo @entity970 was 60 days. CONCLUSION: There seems to be no survival benefit in @entity1 with @entity303 who receive artificial feeding by a @entity970 tube.
