Clinical and functional assessment in patients admitted with pluripathological dysphagia according to the mode of feeding: Through a gastrostomy tube or oral

Cristina López-Muñoz , Marta Aranda-Gallardo , Francisco Rivas-Ruiz , Ana Belén Moya-Suárez , José Miguel Morales-Asencio , José Carlos Canca-Sanchez
{"title":"Clinical and functional assessment in patients admitted with pluripathological dysphagia according to the mode of feeding: Through a gastrostomy tube or oral","authors":"Cristina López-Muñoz ,&nbsp;Marta Aranda-Gallardo ,&nbsp;Francisco Rivas-Ruiz ,&nbsp;Ana Belén Moya-Suárez ,&nbsp;José Miguel Morales-Asencio ,&nbsp;José Carlos Canca-Sanchez","doi":"10.1016/j.enfcle.2023.06.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Multipathological patients are a vulnerable population with high comorbidity, functional impairment, and nutritional risk. Almost 50% of these hospitalized patients have dysphagia. There is no consensus on whether placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube provides greater clinical benefit. The purpose of this study was to know and compare 2 groups of multipathological patients with dysphagia according to the mode of feeding: PEG vs. oral.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p><span><span><span>Retrospective descriptive study with hospitalized patients (2016−19), pluripathological, with dysphagia, nutritional risk, over 50 years with diagnoses of: dementia, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), neurological disease<span>, or oropharyngeal neoplasia. Terminally ill patients with jejunostomy tube or </span></span>parenteral nutrition were excluded. Sociodemographic variables, clinical situation, and comorbidities were evaluated. </span>Bivariate analysis was performed to compare both groups according to their diet, establishing a significance level of </span><em>p</em> &lt; .05.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>1928 multipathological patients. The PEG group consisted of 84 patients (n122). A total of 84 were randomly selected to form the non-PEG group (n434). This group had less history of bronchoaspiration/pneumonia (<em>p</em> = .008), its main diagnosis was stroke versus dementia in the PEG group (<em>p</em> &lt; .001). Both groups had more than a 45% risk of comorbidity (<em>p</em> = .77).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>multipathological patients with dysphagia with PEG usually have dementia as their main diagnosis, however, stroke is the most relevant pathology in those fed orally. Both groups have associated risk factors, high comorbidity, and dependence. This causes their vital prognosis to be limited regardless of the mode of feeding.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72917,"journal":{"name":"Enfermeria clinica (English Edition)","volume":"33 4","pages":"Pages 251-260"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Enfermeria clinica (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2445147923000371","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Multipathological patients are a vulnerable population with high comorbidity, functional impairment, and nutritional risk. Almost 50% of these hospitalized patients have dysphagia. There is no consensus on whether placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube provides greater clinical benefit. The purpose of this study was to know and compare 2 groups of multipathological patients with dysphagia according to the mode of feeding: PEG vs. oral.

Method

Retrospective descriptive study with hospitalized patients (2016−19), pluripathological, with dysphagia, nutritional risk, over 50 years with diagnoses of: dementia, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), neurological disease, or oropharyngeal neoplasia. Terminally ill patients with jejunostomy tube or parenteral nutrition were excluded. Sociodemographic variables, clinical situation, and comorbidities were evaluated. Bivariate analysis was performed to compare both groups according to their diet, establishing a significance level of p < .05.

Results

1928 multipathological patients. The PEG group consisted of 84 patients (n122). A total of 84 were randomly selected to form the non-PEG group (n434). This group had less history of bronchoaspiration/pneumonia (p = .008), its main diagnosis was stroke versus dementia in the PEG group (p < .001). Both groups had more than a 45% risk of comorbidity (p = .77).

Conclusions

multipathological patients with dysphagia with PEG usually have dementia as their main diagnosis, however, stroke is the most relevant pathology in those fed orally. Both groups have associated risk factors, high comorbidity, and dependence. This causes their vital prognosis to be limited regardless of the mode of feeding.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多病理性吞咽困难患者的临床和功能评估,根据喂养方式:通过胃造口管或口服
多病理患者是易患人群,具有较高的合并症、功能障碍和营养风险。几乎50%的住院患者有吞咽困难。关于放置经皮内镜胃造口术(PEG)管是否能提供更大的临床效益尚无共识。本研究的目的是了解并比较两组多病理吞咽困难患者的喂养方式:PEG与口服。方法回顾性描述性研究纳入2016 - 2019年住院的多病理、吞咽困难、营养风险、50岁以上诊断为痴呆、脑血管意外(CVA)、神经系统疾病或口咽肿瘤的患者。绝症患者排除空肠造口管或肠外营养。评估社会人口学变量、临床情况和合并症。采用双因素分析比较两组饮食差异,显著性水平为p < .05。结果1928例多病理患者。PEG组84例(n122例)。随机抽取84只,组成非peg组(n434)。该组支气管吸入性肺炎病史较少(p = .008),PEG组的主要诊断为卒中与痴呆(p < .001)。两组共病风险均大于45% (p = .77)。结论多病理合并PEG的吞咽困难患者多以痴呆为主要诊断,而口服吞咽困难患者以卒中为最相关病理。两组都有相关的危险因素,高合并症和依赖性。这导致它们的生命预后受到限制,无论喂养方式如何。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Quality of life and spiritual needs of patients diagnosed with cancer in a tertiary hospital in southwestern Nigeria Effectiveness of implementing a Best Practice Guideline recommendations to manage pain in oncological hospitalized patients Proposed therapeutic and care approach in a patient with chronic prurigo: Clinical case Artificial intelligence as a tool for error prevention in clinical care Rasch analysis implementation in nursing research: A methodological approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1