Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (33)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WANKLYN, P.
Right arrow Articles by BELFIELD, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by WANKLYN, P.
Right arrow Articles by BELFIELD, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1995 Oxford University Press

research-article

Outcome in Patients Who require a Gastrostomy after Stroke

PETER WANKLYN, NIALL COX and PETER BELFIELD

Medical Department for the Elderly, Leeds General Infirmary Great George Street, Leeds LSI 3EX

Dysphagia is common after a stroke and is associated with a poor outcome in terms of survival or functional recovery. Percutaneous gastrostomy (PG) provides reliable and safe nutrition for patients with neurological dysphagia in the short term but little is known about the subsequent outcome in stroke patients. We reviewed the medical records of all stroke patients who had required a PG in four West Yorkshire hospitals over a 30-month period. All patients alive at the time of the study were contacted and functional status was recorded.

Forty-one stroke patients had undergone PG and 37 records were obtained. There were 24 men and 13 women with a mean age of 74 years. Thirty-three patients had had a hemiplegia while four patients presented acutely with dysphagia but no hemiplegia (all had cerebral infarcts on CT scan). The timing of PG varied with a median time from stroke of 26 days (range 12–131). Complications included five chest infections (<1 week after PG), three local infections, two tubes pulled out and one perforation. Three patients died in the first 5 days after the PG. Thirty-one of the 37 patients had died at the time of the assessment, 21 during the original hospital admission. The median survival from the time of PG was 53 days (range 2–528) with only 12 patients surviving for more than 3 months. Six patients were alive at the time of the study and all but one were severely disabled (mean modified Barthel Index seven).

There is no consensus about patient selection or the timing of PG and our data should lead to more careful consideration of the risks and benefits of the procedure in stroke patients.

Revision received April 15, 1995.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Postgrad. Med. J.Home page
S Singh and S Hamdy
Dysphagia in stroke patients.
Postgrad. Med. J., June 1, 2006; 82(968): 383 - 391.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NEJMHome page
D. Casarett, J. Kapo, and A. Caplan
Appropriate Use of Artificial Nutrition and Hydration -- Fundamental Principles and Recommendations
N. Engl. J. Med., December 15, 2005; 353(24): 2607 - 2612.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
G. Akner and T. Cederholm
Treatment of protein-energy malnutrition in chronic nonmalignant disorders
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, July 1, 2001; 74(1): 6 - 24.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nutr Clin PractHome page
J. S. Scolapio, M. Romano, J. F. Meschia, V. Tarrosa, and F. E. Chukwudelunzu
Clinical Research: PEG Feeding Tube Placement Following a Stroke: When to Place, When to Wait
Nutr Clin Pract, February 1, 2000; 15(1): 36 - 39.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 JPEN J Parenter Enteral NutrHome page
D. F. Kirby
Low Serum Albumin and Increased Risk of Mortality After Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: Surprised?
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, March 1, 1997; 21(2): 53 - 54.
[PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.