Evidence Hub

Outcomes of stroke patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

M. M. Al-Salihi, Syed A. Gillani, R. Saha, A. Abd Elazim, M. S. Al-Jebur, Shamser Singh Dalal, Farhan Siddiq, Ali Ayyad et al.

Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 2024

996,567 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (P.E.G.) is recommended for stroke patients with dysphagia to sustain oral nutrition. Objective This study assesses the outcomes of stroke patients undergoing P.E.G. compared with those requiring nasogastric tube (N.G.T) or control group. Methods We performed a thorough search across five electronic databases to gather pertinent studies. Outcomes were analyzed using relative risk (R.R.) for categorical data and mean difference (M.D.) for continuous data, each with 95% confidence intervals (C.I.). The single-arm meta-analysis results were presented as proportions or mean changes, also with 95% C.I. Results We included 22 studies consisting of 996,567 patients. Our double-arm meta-analysis (924,134 patients) revealed no significant difference in post-hospitalization or in-hospital mortality between P.E.G. and control groups. However, P.E.G. patients showed a higher risk of aspiration pneumonia than control (R.R. = 11.72[3.75, 36.62], p < 0.00001). A comparison of P.E.G. and N.G.T. in three studies involving 691 patients indicated a non-significant difference in-hospital mortality risk (R.R. = 0.59, 95% C.I. [0.2, 1.72]). The single-arm analysis of stroke patients with P.E.G. identified a 19.8% in-hospital mortality, 13.6% rate of aspiration pneumonia, and 58% rate of pneumonia. Conclusion Stroke patients undergoing P.E.G remain at high risk for aspiration pneumonia and with an in-hospital mortality suggesting the need for…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 996,567 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free