Anica C Law1,2, Jennifer P Stevens1,2, Allan J Walkey3,4,5. 1. 1 Center for Healthcare Delivery Science, and. 2. 2 Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. 3 Evans Center for Implementation and Improvement Sciences, and. 4. 4 The Pulmonary Center, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts; and. 5. 5 Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Rationale: Although gastrostomy tubes have shown to be of limited benefit in patients with advanced dementia, they continue to be used to deliver nutritional support in critically ill patients. The epidemiology and short-term outcomes are unclear. Objectives: To quantify national practice patterns and short-term outcomes of gastrostomy tube placement among the critically ill over the last two decades in the United States. Methods: Using the U.S. Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's National Inpatient Sample, we evaluated trends in annual population-standardized rates of gastrostomy tube placement among critically ill adults from 1994 to 2014; we also quantified trends in length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and discharge location. We conducted sensitivity analyses among mechanically ventilated patients, survivors, and decedents of critical illness, and in a critically ill population excluding patients with dementia. Results: From 1994 to 2014, population-based rates of gastrostomy tube use in critically ill patients increased from 11.9 to 28.8 gastrostomies per 100,000 U.S. adults (peak in incidence in 2010), an increase of 142% (31,392-91,990 gastrostomy tubes in critically ill patients; P < 0.001). Patients receiving gastrostomy tubes during critical illness occupied a growing proportion of all gastrostomy tube placements, accounting for 19.6% of all gastrostomy tubes placed in 1994 and 50.8% in 2014. The rate of gastrostomies in critically ill patients remained roughly stable, from 2.5% of critically ill patients in 1994 to a peak of 3.7% in 2002 before declining again to 2.4% in 2014. Hospital length of stay and in-hospital mortality decreased among gastrostomy tube recipients (28.7 d to 20.5 d, P < 0.001; 25.9-11.3%, P < 0.001; respectively), whereas discharges to long-term facilities increased significantly (49.6-70.6%; P < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses among mechanically ventilated patients revealed similar increases in population-based estimates of gastrostomy tube placement. Conclusions: The incidence of gastrostomy tube placement among critically ill patients more than doubled between 1994 and 2014, with most patients being discharged to long-term care facilities. Critically ill patients are now the primary utilizer of gastrostomy tubes placed in the United States. Additional research is needed to better characterize the long-term risk and benefits of gastrostomy tube use in critically ill patients.
Rationale: Although gastrostomy tubes have shown to be of limited benefit in patients with advanced dementia, they continue to be used to deliver nutritional support in critically illpatients. The epidemiology and short-term outcomes are unclear. Objectives: To quantify national practice patterns and short-term outcomes of gastrostomy tube placement among the critically ill over the last two decades in the United States. Methods: Using the U.S. Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's National Inpatient Sample, we evaluated trends in annual population-standardized rates of gastrostomy tube placement among critically ill adults from 1994 to 2014; we also quantified trends in length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and discharge location. We conducted sensitivity analyses among mechanically ventilated patients, survivors, and decedents of critical illness, and in a critically ill population excluding patients with dementia. Results: From 1994 to 2014, population-based rates of gastrostomy tube use in critically illpatients increased from 11.9 to 28.8 gastrostomies per 100,000 U.S. adults (peak in incidence in 2010), an increase of 142% (31,392-91,990 gastrostomy tubes in critically illpatients; P < 0.001). Patients receiving gastrostomy tubes during critical illness occupied a growing proportion of all gastrostomy tube placements, accounting for 19.6% of all gastrostomy tubes placed in 1994 and 50.8% in 2014. The rate of gastrostomies in critically illpatients remained roughly stable, from 2.5% of critically illpatients in 1994 to a peak of 3.7% in 2002 before declining again to 2.4% in 2014. Hospital length of stay and in-hospital mortality decreased among gastrostomy tube recipients (28.7 d to 20.5 d, P < 0.001; 25.9-11.3%, P < 0.001; respectively), whereas discharges to long-term facilities increased significantly (49.6-70.6%; P < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses among mechanically ventilated patients revealed similar increases in population-based estimates of gastrostomy tube placement. Conclusions: The incidence of gastrostomy tube placement among critically illpatients more than doubled between 1994 and 2014, with most patients being discharged to long-term care facilities. Critically illpatients are now the primary utilizer of gastrostomy tubes placed in the United States. Additional research is needed to better characterize the long-term risk and benefits of gastrostomy tube use in critically illpatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
critical illness; gastrostomy; patient care planning
Authors: Nathan E Brummel; Susan P Bell; Timothy D Girard; Pratik P Pandharipande; James C Jackson; Alessandro Morandi; Jennifer L Thompson; Rameela Chandrasekhar; Gordon R Bernard; Robert S Dittus; Thomas M Gill; E Wesley Ely Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Jeremy M Kahn; Tri Le; Derek C Angus; Christopher E Cox; Catherine L Hough; Douglas B White; Sachin Yende; Shannon S Carson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Joan M Teno; Pedro L Gozalo; Susan L Mitchell; Sylvia Kuo; Ramona L Rhodes; Julie P W Bynum; Vincent Mor Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Elizabeth M Viglianti; Erin F Carlton; Joanne McPeake; Xiao Qing Wang; Sarah Seelye; Theodore J Iwashyna Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Anica C Law; Jennifer P Stevens; Eunhee Choi; Changyu Shen; Anuj B Mehta; Robert W Yeh; Allan J Walkey Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2022-03
Authors: Stephen P Reis; Sidney Z Brejt; Joseph R Weintraub; Noor Ahmad; Jonathan Susman; David G Mobley Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 3.510