A prospective comparison of the use of nasogastric and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes for long-term enteral feeding in older people

Objective: To compare the indications for and the outcome of long-term enteral feeding by nasogastric tube (NGT) with that of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. Design: A prospective, multicenter cohort study. Setting: Acute geriatric units and long-term care (LTC) hospitals in Jerusalem, Israel.Participants : 122 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.Measurements : We examined the indications for enteral feeding, nutritional status, outcome and complications in all subjects. Subjects were followed for a minimum period of six months. Results: Although 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. Conclusion: In 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.